Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership: Theory and Cases (Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business) [1st ed. 2020] 303037100X, 9783030371005

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Praise for Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership
Contents
Chapter 1: What’s So Hard About Leadership? Stress, Crisis, Trauma, and the Resilience Factor
How the Mighty Have Fallen: Leadership Failure
What Causes Leadership Failure: Leadership Fatigue
The Power of Resilience: What the Data Says About Standing Firm and Bouncing Back
The Efficacy of Scripture for Leadership Research
Conclusion
References
Chapter 2: Amazing Grace: The Bible and the Gift of Leadership
Why Does Leadership Exist in the First Place?
Genesis and the First Leader
Leadership in the Hebrew Scriptures
Leadership in the Christian Scriptures
The Gift of Leadership
References
Chapter 3: When Bigger Is Not Better: Moses the Shepherd
How Did Moses End Up Leading in the First Place?
Issues of Perfectionism: The Importance of Timing in Leadership
Issues of Performance: When Good Enough Is Not Good Enough
Issues of People Pleasing: How One Bad Day Can Ruin Everything
Resilience Lessons from Moses
References
Chapter 4: When the Only Easy Day Was Yesterday: Joshua, the General
How Did Joshua End Up Leading in the First Place?
Issues of Perfectionism: The Pressure of “Following” a Great Leader
Issues of Performance: Yesterday’s Victory Does Not Guarantee Tomorrow’s Success
Issues of People Pleasing: When Assuming the Best Almost Costs You Everything
Resilience Lessons from Joshua
References
Chapter 5: Should I Stay or Should I Go? Samuel, Reputation, and Transition
How Did Samuel End Up Leading in the First Place?
Issues of Perfectionism: The Pressure of “Following” a Bad Leader
Issues of Performance: Moving Beyond the Status Quo
Issues of People Pleasing: Reputation and Leadership
Held in High Honor: All That He Says Comes True
Resilience Lessons from Samuel
References
Chapter 6: Power, Wealth, and Morality: A Tale of Two Davids
How Did David End Up Leading in the First Place?
Issues of Perfectionism: When Leadership Almost Costs You Your Life
Issues of Performance: Conformity Does Not Equal Maturity
Issues of People Pleasing: How Pleasing Yourself Is Not the Answer
Resilience Lessons from David
References
Chapter 7: Leading in the Upside Down: Peter the Rock
How Did Peter End Up Leading in the First Place?
Issues of Perfectionism: Living Up to the Name Above All Names
Issues of Performance: Doing What Jesus Did
Issues of People Pleasing: The Dark Side and the Hypocrite
Resilience Lessons from Peter
References
Chapter 8: Leading Under Pressure: James and the Shadow of Jesus
How Did James End Up Leading in the First Place?
Issues of Perfectionism: When the Previous Boss Moves On
Issues of Performance: Leading from the Inside Out
Issues of People Pleasing: Making It Difficult Versus Making It Plain
Resilience Lessons from James
References
Chapter 9: Bouncing Back: Closing Thoughts
The Others: Leaders Worth Looking At
Does Everything Rise and Fall on Leadership?
Bouncing Back and Moving Forward
Summary of Principles for Resilience
References
Index

Citation preview

CHRISTIAN FAITH PERSPECTIVES IN LEADERSHIP AND BUSINESS

Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership Theory and Cases c a r l o a . se r r a no

Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business Series Editors Doris Gomez Regent University Virginia Beach, VA, USA Kathleen Patterson School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship Regent University Virginia Beach, VA, USA Bruce E. Winston Regent University Virginia Beach, VA, USA Gary Oster Regent University Virginia Beach, VA, USA

This book series is designed to integrate Christian faith-based perspectives into the field of leadership and business, widening its influence by taking a deeper look at its foundational roots. It is led by a team of experts from Regent University, recognized by the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities as the leader in servant leadership research and the first Christian University to integrate innovation, design thinking, and entrepreneurship courses in its Masters and Doctoral programs. Stemming from Regent’s hallmark values of innovation and Christian faith-based perspectives, the series aims to put forth top-notch scholarship from current faculty, students, and alumni of Regent’s School of Business & Leadership, allowing for both scholarly and practical aspects to be addressed while providing robust content and relevant material to readers. Each volume in the series will contribute to filling the void of a scholarly Christian-faith perspective on key aspects of organizational leadership and business such as Business and Innovation, Biblical Perspectives in Business and Leadership, and Servant Leadership. The series takes a unique approach to such broad-based and well-trodden disciplines as leadership, business, innovation, and entrepreneurship, positioning itself as a much-­ needed resource for students, academics, and leaders rooted in Christian-­ faith traditions. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15425

Carlo A. Serrano

Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership Theory and Cases

Carlo A. Serrano Grace College of Divinity Clarksville, TN, USA

Scripture quotations are from The ESV ® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version ®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business ISBN 978-3-030-37100-5    ISBN 978-3-030-37101-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgments

I am so thankful to my mentors and colleagues in the Regent University School of Business and Leadership, the Piedmont International University Wesley School of Leadership, and Grace College of Divinity. It is a joy to serve our students and the cause of Christ-centered leadership. Special thanks to the staff and member-owners of oneChurch.tv. I would also like to thank my wife, Jaemi, and our two sons for continuing to encourage me as I write, research, and pursue the call of God as a pastor-teacher.

v

Praise for Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership “In this excellent study on resilience in leadership Serrano explores the largely unexamined issues of leadership failure and restoration with a focus on prevention. This critical analysis examines this relevant topic broadly from social science and Scripture and deeply from the text of Scripture. The writing is highly insightful in the analysis of the issues involved in these processes and it brings profound proposed solutions. These much-needed solutions are a call to revisit the norms of leadership expectations and leadership development in the contemporary context. This book surprises the reader with thoughtful insights, applications, and calls to action. This finely nuanced study is a much-needed addition for the exploration of solutions for the leadership culture of societies and organizations as they have been troubled by leadership failures since the beginning of human history. I highly recommend this book toleaders and emerging leaders everywhere as a source of study, as a foundation for new leadership development endeavors and most importantly for personal growth in leadership.” —Steven Crowther, President, Grace College of Divinity “Leadership is both gift and burden. Dr. Carlo Serrano understands and articulates the impact this can have on a leader. He also understands the ways leaders can endure the grind while enjoying the gift. His work on leadership is an engaging, content rich tapestry of personal experience, scripture, current events, and leadership scholarship. It will help the reader not only understand the burden of leadership, but come to enjoy it for the gift it is—and do so for the long haul.” —Steve Estep, Senior Pastor, Marion First Church of the Nazarene “For some, the difference between winning and losing is simply staying in the game. Yet too many leaders, and followers, give up when the goal line is in sight. What makes someone strong enough, resilient enough, and focused enough to lead through adversity and setbacks? Dr. Serrano’s analysis explores this question (and many others) with insight, creativity, and Biblical authority. His discussion of resilience covers a lot of leadership territory, both ancient and contemporary. The principles shared in Dr. Serrano’s work are valuable for new and veteran leaders facing conflicting and complex leadership issues.” —D. Brent Powell, Dean of the John Wesley School of Leadership, Piedmont International University

Contents

1 What’s So Hard About Leadership? Stress, Crisis, Trauma, and the Resilience Factor  1 How the Mighty Have Fallen: Leadership Failure   1 What Causes Leadership Failure: Leadership Fatigue   4 The Power of Resilience: What the Data Says About Standing Firm and Bouncing Back   5 The Efficacy of Scripture for Leadership Research   6 Conclusion  10 References  11 2 Amazing Grace: The Bible and the Gift of Leadership 15 Why Does Leadership Exist in the First Place?  15 Genesis and the First Leader  16 Leadership in the Hebrew Scriptures  17 Leadership in the Christian Scriptures  19 The Gift of Leadership  22 References  24 3 When Bigger Is Not Better: Moses the Shepherd 25 How Did Moses End Up Leading in the First Place?  25 Issues of Perfectionism: The Importance of Timing in Leadership  26 Issues of Performance: When Good Enough Is Not Good Enough  27 Issues of People Pleasing: How One Bad Day Can Ruin Everything  29 ix

x 

CONTENTS

Resilience Lessons from Moses  31 References  36 4 When the Only Easy Day Was Yesterday: Joshua, the General 37 How Did Joshua End Up Leading in the First Place?  37 Issues of Perfectionism: The Pressure of “Following” a Great Leader  41 Issues of Performance: Yesterday’s Victory Does Not Guarantee Tomorrow’s Success  42 Issues of People Pleasing: When Assuming the Best Almost Costs You Everything  45 Resilience Lessons from Joshua  46 References  50 5 Should I Stay or Should I Go? Samuel, Reputation, and Transition 53 How Did Samuel End Up Leading in the First Place?  53 Issues of Perfectionism: The Pressure of “Following” a Bad Leader  54 Issues of Performance: Moving Beyond the Status Quo  56 Issues of People Pleasing: Reputation and Leadership  57 Held in High Honor: All That He Says Comes True  59 Resilience Lessons from Samuel  60 References  64 6 Power, Wealth, and Morality: A Tale of Two Davids 67 How Did David End Up Leading in the First Place?  67 Issues of Perfectionism: When Leadership Almost Costs You Your Life  70 Issues of Performance: Conformity Does Not Equal Maturity  72 Issues of People Pleasing: How Pleasing Yourself Is Not the Answer  74 Resilience Lessons from David  76 References  80 7 Leading in the Upside Down: Peter the Rock 83 How Did Peter End Up Leading in the First Place?  83 Issues of Perfectionism: Living Up to the Name Above All Names  86 Issues of Performance: Doing What Jesus Did  88

 CONTENTS 

xi

Issues of People Pleasing: The Dark Side and the Hypocrite  89 Resilience Lessons from Peter  91 References  96 8 Leading Under Pressure: James and the Shadow of Jesus 99 How Did James End Up Leading in the First Place?  99 Issues of Perfectionism: When the Previous Boss Moves On 101 Issues of Performance: Leading from the Inside Out 103 Issues of People Pleasing: Making It Difficult Versus Making It Plain 105 Resilience Lessons from James 108 References 112 9 Bouncing Back: Closing Thoughts115 The Others: Leaders Worth Looking At 115 Does Everything Rise and Fall on Leadership? 121 Bouncing Back and Moving Forward 123 Summary of Principles for Resilience 125 References 126 Index129

CHAPTER 1

What’s So Hard About Leadership? Stress, Crisis, Trauma, and the Resilience Factor

How the Mighty Have Fallen: Leadership Failure “Suck it up and drive on!” I spent years haunted by that phrase. During my five years on Active Duty in the US Army, I learned that the only way forward was to “Embrace the Suck” and never show weakness as a leader. In the military, leadership is all about standing out, being first, and setting the standard for all others to follow. Of course, principles such as sacrifice, selfless service, and teamwork weave throughout the military ethics. However, what is “taught” and what is “caught” are not necessarily synonymous. When I transitioned from the military and into vocational ministry, I was shocked to see that there was not much difference in the leadership culture of a large traditional Church and the famed combat unit that I served within Iraq. In my new ministry context, we were taught to “Never let them see you sweat” and to never be transparent with our weaknesses, lest we undermine our authority and leadership. I am sure that this line of reasoning was, on the surface, nothing more than the by-­ product of my leader’s 40 years of ministry experience. Still, that reasoning submerged me into a culture where failure was fatal, final, and a flaw best kept locked away. It is no wonder that leaders are facing what appears to be an epidemic of burnout and ethical failure. While the military has sought to develop intentional strategies to help service members bounce back from the pressures of military life and leadership, it seems as if other industries are struggling to grasp a critical construct: Leadership is hard © The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2_1

1

2 

C. A. SERRANO

and traumatic. It turns out that “suck it up and drive on” is much easier said than done. The evidence for the reality of leadership failure exists across virtually every industry. For example, the financial scandals of the early 2000s and the financial crisis of 2008 link to several micro-ethical failures that, when compounded over time, led to the near-collapse of the global economy. As a result, companies such as AIG and Enron are now synonymous with the erosion of ethics in leadership (De Cremer, Tenbrunsel, & Dijke, 2010). We would be irresponsible to assume that the leaders of these companies woke up one day and decided to lie, cheat, and steal. Yet, lie, cheat, and steal they did. Conversely, we would be disrespectful to those who suffered during these crises if we tried to justify the unethical behavior of people such as Bernie Madoff, Bernie Ebbers, or Dennis Kozlowski. Perhaps the most straightforward way forward is to acknowledge that there is something inherent in the role of leadership that uniquely impacts ethical and moral decision-making. Leadership is hard in the most literal sense. Other examples of the hard reality of leadership dwell within the realm of ecclesial leadership. Ecclesial leaders not only wear a wide variety of vocational hats but also measure against the highest standards of morality. Yet sadly, these leaders succumb to the same types of scandal and burnout found within the business and political arenas. From 2012 to 2019, at least 15 American evangelical megachurch pastors were fired or forced to resign. That does not account for leaders who stepped down during that period who were not well-known celebrity pastors. Although often unknown by the masses, these non-celebrity ecclesial leaders are known by their congregations, and that matters. It matters because of the reality that leadership matters. It matters because every one of those leaders represents organizations and communities that have been forever altered by leadership failure. It matters because there is an ever-increasing distrust in leadership that connects to unethical and immoral decision-making (Brown & Treviño, 2014; Schaubroek et al., 2002; Zheng et al., 2015). Some of these leaders stepped away by choice due to burnout. Most lost their jobs or quit because they made unethical and immoral decisions that led to sinful behavior. It would be the epitome of judgment to stand on the sidelines and throw stones at these leaders for their failures. However, it would be equally irresponsible not to try to learn something from their failures. It is also important to note that not all leadership failure is unethical or immoral. For example, in the National Football League (NFL), the Head

1  WHAT’S SO HARD ABOUT LEADERSHIP? STRESS, CRISIS, TRAUMA… 

3

Coach is hired to do one thing: Win. Yet, most NFL coaches are only given four seasons to produce winning results. For example, 40 percent of the NFL’s 32 teams change head coaches every three and a half years (Suneson, 2019). Several variables go into a winning season in the NFL, many of which are outside of the head coach’s control. Nevertheless, they are held accountable for wins and losses. Simply put, these high-profile leaders lost their positions due to a perceived failure in their leadership. However, one could argue that failure in this industry is highly subjective at best. Liu (2010) suggests that instead of only exploring failure from the perspectives of blame or outcome performance, it is vital to examine the often-overlooked aspects of failure. According to Liu, failure framing is the process whereby explanations for failures are given to enhance a leader’s reputation and aid in recovery from failure. Unfortunately, some misunderstand framing as inauthentic leadership. This misunderstanding may inadvertently cause leaders to move away from transparency and toward the cover-ups and isolation that are associated with unethical leadership. There is a story arc in The West Wing television show that perfectly encapsulates this discussion on leadership failure and failure framing. For the record, I believe that The West Wing is one of the greatest television shows in history, and I am not alone in that judgment (Sheffield, 2016). In the show, President Josiah Bartlett (played by Martin Sheen) lied by omission, both before and after his election to office, about his having Multiple Sclerosis. Spoiler alert: his secret eventually leaks out, and the administration goes into spin mode. As more and more of the president’s advisors deal with the news, the entire administration faces two choices: Own the failure or cover it up. One of my favorite scenes in the story arc takes place between Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman (played by Bradley Whitford) and White House Press Secretary C. J. Craig (played by Allison Janney). In the scene, Josh stops C. J. to talk to her about their current crisis. Josh tells C.  J., “The President is worried that it’ll look like we announced the MS to the public because we took a poll” (Sorkin, Caddell, & Misiano, 2001). C. J. laughs incredulously and says, “You guys are like Butch and Sundance peering over the edge of a cliff to the boulder-filled rapids below, thinking you better not jump because there is a chance that you might drown. … You’re worried that the polling might make us look bad? It’s the fall that’s gonna kill you” (Sorkin et  al., 2001). For many leaders, the pressures of organizational life, the stress of other’s expectations, and the height of the pedestal make it easy to self-sabotage as a way

4 

C. A. SERRANO

of hitting the eject-button (Woodworth, 2019). When leaders fail, many focus on saving face, placing blame, or quickly moving on as if nothing happened. What we should realize is it is the fall that is killing us. More than that, we must figure out a way to help leaders bounce back from the fall or, better yet, avoid the fall altogether.

What Causes Leadership Failure: Leadership Fatigue What is so hard about leadership? This question is one of the issues that fueled my doctoral research. According to several studies, leaders are always faced with internal and external pressures that if left unchecked, often lead to stress and burnout (Diaconescu, 2015; Diestel, Cosmar, & Schmidt, 2013; Grosch & Olsen, 2000; Hendron, Irving, & Taylor, 2012; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Zheng et al., 2015). External pressures include things such as environmental uncertainty, geopolitical realities, and economic instability. Internal forces include things such as perfectionism, performance stress, and people pleasing. There is also an element of trauma that includes burnout and stress. In the same way that not all failure is equal, not all trauma is related to life and death situations such as a mass shooting or combat operations. For some, a forced termination is a traumatic event that produces symptoms that correlate with post-traumatic stress generalized anxiety symptoms (Tanner, Wherry, & Zvonkovic, 2013). Moreover, just the thought of being fired causes anxiety and stress in leaders, which often negatively impacts their decision-making. I believe that the catalyst behind much of the failure we see in leadership is leadership fatigue. I define leadership fatigue as a combination of internal and external trauma, work-related stress, and morally intense situations that impact and influence a leader’s decision-making and behavioral processes. Understanding the why behind leadership failure helps us to understand how leaders can bounce back from failure. Take, for example, the ethical and moral shortcomings already discussed in this book. The CEOs and ecclesial leaders who were fired at best and imprisoned at worst did not fail because they did not know how to work hard, communicate with charisma, or think strategically. They failed because their moral compasses were compromised. If we can get ahead of the impact that leadership fatigue has on our moral compasses, then we can bounce back from failure or prevent failure from happening in the first place.

1  WHAT’S SO HARD ABOUT LEADERSHIP? STRESS, CRISIS, TRAUMA… 

5

The Power of Resilience: What the Data Says About Standing Firm and Bouncing Back If you are old enough, then you may remember two American pop-­cultural icons that, in many ways, embody the concept of resilience. The first is the Weeble. The Weeble became a household name because of its catchy and accurate slogan: “Weebles wobble, … but they don’t fall down.” These egg-shaped toys were all the buzz for children in the 1970s and 1980s. No matter how hard you pushed them over, they would always bounce back to their original upright position. Perhaps a more scientifically accurate slogan for Weebles would be: “Weebles wobble, but they don’t STAY down thanks to a perfectly placed weight that keeps them anchored and thanks to the laws of physics that all but ensure the Weeble’s safe return to an upright position.” Obviously, that would not play well in a commercial, but you get the point. The Weeble bounces back up because it is grounded and shaped to do just that. The other American pop-cultural icon that best embodies resilience is the Timex watch. Although there is nothing inherently fancy about a Timex watch, they remain trendy. Their popularity is due mainly in part to advertising executive Russ Alben. Alben coined one of the greatest taglines in advertising history: “Timex—It takes a licking and keeps on ticking” (Russell, 2012). According to Timex’s adverting machine, the watches could survive everything from a deep plunge into the ocean to the rigors of construction work. Both the Weeble and the Timex are essential to the conversation on resilience because they both cover the dual nature of reliance. Resilience is not just the ability to bounce back; it is also the ability to stand up under pressure. Resilience is a bit of a buzz topic in the world of business and finance. Moreover, the last 18 years of military operations in the Global War on Terror have made resilience a buzz word in military leadership circles as well. However, resilience is not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination. The late Norman Garmezy is known as the father of resilience theory. His decades of research into resilience helped the idea evolve from its early focus on mental health to child development and organizational life. Garmezy (1991) argued that if the right internal and external variables are in place, then adults and children can bounce back from the ­difficulties of life. Masten (1994), who worked with and built upon the work of Garmezy, argued that resilience is indeed a matter of adaptation. The Project Competence Longitudinal Study (PCLS), which was initiated

6 

C. A. SERRANO

by Garmezy, aided in the development of “models, measures, and methods” related to the concept of resilience (Masten & Tellegen, 2012, p. 345). Thanks to the findings of the PCLS, we now know the following regarding resilience: • There are competencies that if displayed in childhood will result in healthy adaptation in adulthood • Resilient people are adaptive people • It is possible to be a “Late-bloomer” when it comes to resilience. (Masten & Tellegen, 2012, pp. 355–357) According to research, the concept of resilience forms from one’s ability to “return to a sense of normality” after experiencing some significant psychosocial event (Teo, Lee, & Lim, 2017, p. 136). Resilience exists not only on the individual level but also within organizations. Resilient organizations not only adjust to current adversity but also develop the design and strategy to overcome future problems (Teo et al., 2017). In between the concepts of individual resilience and organizational resilience is team resilience. Gucciardi et al. (2018) state that team resilience “requires clarity on the individual and team level factors that foster its emergence within occupational and organizational settings” (p. 729). They also suggest that understanding the nature of adverse events is critical to understanding team resilience (Gucciardi et al., 2018). Masten (2011) argues that resilience emerges from “complex interactions” at every level of the human experience from the cellular to the relational to the global (p. 502). There is a vast amount of research on resilience. However, there is a significant gap in the research when it comes to connecting resilience in leadership to what is arguably one of the most excellent resources for leadership studies: The Bible.

The Efficacy of Scripture for Leadership Research As far back as I can remember, I have always been an intense researcher. My mother took everything at face value. She had a strong Christian faith and lived by the values of the Good Book. Thus, she always confused my inquisitive and analytical mind with what she liked to call “militant ­rebellion.” Yes, I was the young child who wanted to argue out every point of our familial conflict, and, of course, I tried to reason my way out of many a well-deserved punishment! My analytical mind did not seem to

1  WHAT’S SO HARD ABOUT LEADERSHIP? STRESS, CRISIS, TRAUMA… 

7

fit within the parameters of Exodus 20:12, at least not from my mother’s perspective. Indeed, I did not get my analytical mind from my mother. My father, however, was a Vietnam-era veteran, a New Yorker, and a physician assistant. He is the most cerebral person that I have ever known. My father was living his best Enneagram Five life long before personality types became trendy. He would always challenge me to “look it up” whenever I had a question. For example, I fell in love with reading maps because I once made the mistake of asking my father, “Are we there yet.” I became a lover of facts because we always had encyclopedias, medical manuals, and extensive biographies in our home library. My father taught me to think, and my mother taught me to have faith. Both connected me with a sacred text that would forever change the trajectory of my life on an intellectual level. Hermeneutics involves the act of drawing from the text its original meaning, studying the results of said exegesis, and then applying those results to the current and future contexts of others (Osborne, 2006). Hermeneutics exists within the broader field of qualitative research, and yet it is interwoven into various doctrines on biblical inerrancy. However, engaging the Bible is so much more than an academic exercise or a means to moralistic therapeutic deism. The point from where one launches into a study of the Bible has significant ramifications. For example, a reader-­ centric position may open a person up to a type of cultural colorblindness that reads contemporary issues back into the text (Osborne, 2006). Conversely, an author-centric approach may lead one to turn a Bible study into the psychoanalysis of the original author as opposed to a study of what the author had to say (Osborne, 2006). Finally, a strict, text-centric approach may lead a person toward a fundamentalist reading of the scriptures, which often neglects the proclamation of each text while also ignoring the historical contexts that influence the text (Carroll, 2003). Therefore, before we move on, it is crucial for me to lay out a fundamental yet straightforward apologetic and hermeneutic approach for how I view the Bible. I believe that God exists. There are plenty of counter feelings or counter philosophies to this statement. However, using a strict scientific methodology, there are no counter pieces of evidence for the existence of God (Geisler & Turek, 2004). On the contrary, there are many pieces of evidence within the natural sciences that point to a creator God. Not only do I believe that God exists, but I also think that miracles can happen. A miracle is an event that transcends the laws of nature. This concept is important because I believe the greatest miracle in history is the resurrection

8 

C. A. SERRANO

of Jesus Christ from the dead. This miracle finds support by eyewitnesses and volumes of original documents written within a few decades of the actual event. The resurrection is the singular event that gave birth to the Church, led to the organization of the Christian scriptures, and forever changed the world. I also believe that the historical documents known as the Gospels are reliable sources of evidence that can be trusted for their accuracy (Geisler & Roach, 2012). In those documents, Jesus of Nazareth affirmed, quoted, and, in many cases, fulfilled the words of the Hebrew scriptures. The New Testament meets all the historical tests for reliability. Today, there are at least 5700 handwritten New Testament manuscripts in the original language still in existence (Geisler & Turek, 2004). Thus, I believe that the entire Bible can be trusted. As Andy Stanley (2018) says, “Anyone who predicts their own death and resurrection and then fulfills the prediction is worth trusting!” (p.  223). Although it is beyond the scope of this book to present an exhaustive argument on biblical inerrancy, you must understand why I think the Bible is sufficient for the study of leadership. Even if a person does not hold to the Christian faith, they can still learn valuable principles from the Bible. One of the biggest misconceptions about the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, known as the Bible, is that they are an irrelevant relic of the past. Both history and research have proven that nothing could be further from the truth. The 66 books that make up the Bible were recorded on multiple continents by at least 40 authors over thousands of years. Yet, within them, there is a consistent theme that runs from Genesis to Revelation: Leadership matters. As I wrote in my original work on leadership fatigue: According to most Judeo–Christian interpretations of the Scriptures, God intended to lead humankind, while humankind was commissioned to rule over the beasts of the earth (Gen 1:28). However, upon the fall of man and the introduction of sinfulness into the world, God chose to raise leaders to serve at times as intermediaries between God and humanity. These leaders included family leaders and the rulers of peoples and nations (1 Sam 8:1–9; Prov 8:15; Dan 2:21; Rom 13:1). According to the Protestant Christian worldview, Jesus Christ is both the only intermediary between God and humanity and the leader of the church (Ephes 4:15–16; 1 Tim 2:5–6). Nevertheless, the writings and teachings of Luke and the Apostles Paul, Peter, and John contain several instructions for leaders, all of which are applicable in the modern world (Acts 6:1–6; 1 Tim 3:1–13; 2 Tim 2:1–13; Titus 1:5–9). (Serrano, 2017)

1  WHAT’S SO HARD ABOUT LEADERSHIP? STRESS, CRISIS, TRAUMA… 

9

So, while it is true that the Bible is a source of inspiration, doctrine, and theology, it is also very much the primer on leadership and the human condition. Several scholars have used the Bible as their launching point for research into leadership over the last 10–15 years. These studies all used a version of Robbins’ (1996) socio-rhetorical analysis to ground their research in sound qualitative methodologies rather than just looking at the texts from a purely theological point of view. Robbins’ method offers researchers a way to explore the Bible from multiple angles by means of five textures. Each texture takes the reader on a journey from the basics of word study (inner texture) to the theological and philosophical complexities of a passage (sacred texture). In between, there are three textures that interact with the various historical, cultural, and societal influences that influenced the author and impacted the original audience (intertexture, social and cultural texture, ideological texture). It is important to note that Robbins’ is not the only hermeneutical methodology used in concert with organizational leadership theory and practice. However, Robbins’ method allows for a balanced approach to the scriptures that will enable researchers to explore leadership from the text instead of merely reading leadership into the text. For example, Crowther (2012) used the writings of the Apostle Peter to demonstrate that transformation occurs through suffering and that leadership is fundamentally about ontological change, imitation, the proper use of authority, service, vision, resolve, purpose, humility, and continual development. Huizing (2013) explored the writings of Moses and the Apostle Paul and demonstrated the importance of ritual in strengthening organizational identity. Perry (2016) uses the Apostle Paul’s first letter to Timothy to show that ethical leaders are indeed virtuous people. Henson (2015) discovered ten core values for ethical leadership within the Apostle Paul’s letter to Titus. Finally, my research into the life and leadership of King David of Israel connected what we know about post-traumatic stress, workplace burnout, compassion fatigue, and organizational leadership with the fall of one of history’s greatest leaders (more on this in Chap. 6). These, along with countless other e­ xplorations on leadership involving the Bible, demonstrate that the scriptures are an appropriate place from which to draw insight into the world of leadership. The Bible is full of examples of real people who face a wide variety of leadership challenges. Their stories, forever archived in history, offer us

10 

C. A. SERRANO

great insight into how to hold up under pressure and in some cases, how to bounce back from failure. Just one chapter into the Bible, we see God using leaders to organize and bring structure to the earth (Genesis 1:26–31). Travel three chapters into the Bible, and you see the first example of leadership failure (Genesis 3:1–7). The story of Moses, as found in the Book of Exodus, is one of the earliest examples of large-scale organizational leadership, delegation, and succession. The Book of Joshua introduces us to one of the most thorough accounts of organizational strategy and tactics in history. The account of Samuel the Prophet, as framed by the Deuteronomist history, offers insight into followership, succession, and legacy leadership. The story of King David of Israel is arguably the most prolific example of the reality of leadership fatigue in the entire Bible. In the New Testament, the character of Peter rises from the position of humble fisherman to the leader of the early Church. An often-overlooked New Testament leader is James, the brother of Jesus, who led during the tipping point of Church expansion in the earliest days of the Church of Jerusalem. Of course, Jesus and the Apostle Paul stand head and shoulders above these in the scope of their leadership and influence. Yet there are countless others in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures that serve as exemplars for leadership. The one thing those mentioned here have in common is at some point they encountered the adverse realities of leadership. Some passed the test. Others did not. Yet all have something to offer the twenty-first-century leader concerning resilience.

Conclusion No leader sets out to fail or crack under the pressures of leadership. Yet, failure and cracking have far too often become commonplace for leaders. The study of organizational leadership is an ever-evolving process. For decades, organizational leadership has found itself placed under the microscope of psychology, sociology, and business science. However, the last 25 years have brought about an increased focus on the ontological nature of organizational leadership from the perspective of both the leader and the follower. In some way, the study of leadership has shifted from an emphasis on what a leader does to who a leader is. Since belief, ethics, and values fuel action, the high-profile impact of moral and ethical failures at the highest levels of leadership demands that we take a serious look at how to bounce back from the adverse realities of leadership.

1  WHAT’S SO HARD ABOUT LEADERSHIP? STRESS, CRISIS, TRAUMA… 

11

Moreover, theology connects to morality, ethics, and human behavior, which means that theological writings may have much to offer in the study of leadership. However, theology in and of itself is a broad field. One way to narrow the application of theological principles to leadership is to focus on what the Bible offers on some aspects of leadership theory, such as resilience. Thus, it is essential to outline what the Bible says on leadership and how those statements connect with leadership theory.

References Brown, M., & Treviño, L. (2014). Do role models matter? An investigation of role modeling as an antecedent of perceived ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 587–598. Carroll, R. P. (2003). The spectre at the feast: Fundamentalism and biblical hermeneutics (Part I). Modern Believing, 44(2), 5–13. Crowther, S. (2012). Peter on leadership: A contemporary exegetical analysis. Fayetteville, NC: Steven Crowther. De Cremer, D., Tenbrunsel, A., & Dijke, M. (2010). Regulating ethical failures: Insights from psychology. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 1–6. Diaconescu, M. (2015). Burnout, secondary trauma and compassion fatigue in social work. Social Work Review/Revista De Asistenta Sociala, 14(3), 57–63. Diestel, S., Cosmar, M., & Schmidt, K. (2013). Burnout and impaired cognitive functioning: The role of executive control in the performance of cognitive tasks. Work & Stress, 27(2), 164–180. Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. The American Behavioral Scientist (1986–1994), 34(4), 416. Geisler, N. L., & Roach, W. C. (2012). Defending inerrancy: Affirming the accuracy of scripture for a new generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Geisler, N.  L., & Turek, F. (2004). I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist (Foreword by David Limbaugh). Wheaton, IL: Crossway. Grosch, W. N., & Olsen, D. C. (2000). Clergy burnout: An integrative approach. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 619–632. Gucciardi, D. F., Crane, M., Ntoumanis, N., Parker, S. K., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Ducker, K. J., … Temby, P. (2018). The emergence of team resilience: A multilevel conceptual model of facilitating factors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(4), 729–768. Hendron, J., Irving, P., & Taylor, B. (2012). The unseen cost: A discussion of the secondary traumatization experience of the clergy. Pastoral Psychology, 61(2), 221–231.

12 

C. A. SERRANO

Henson, J. D. (2015). An examination of the role of spirituality in the development of the moral component of authentic leadership through a sociorhetorical analysis of Paul’s letter to Titus (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3682828). Huizing, R. L. (2013). The importance of ritual for follower development: An intertexture analysis of Leviticus 23  in the Pauline corpus (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3570908). Liu, H. (2010). When leaders fail: A typology of failures and framing strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 232–259. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.  B., & Leiter, M.  P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397 422. Masten, A. S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk and adversity. In M. C. Wang & E. Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Masten, A.  S. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Frameworks for research, practice, and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2), 493–506. Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (2012). Resilience in developmental psychopathology: Contributions of the project competence longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 345–361. Osborne, G. A. (2006). The hermeneutical spiral: A comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation (Kindle Edition). Westmont, IL: IVP. Perry, A. (2016). Exemplary lives in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity: An analysis of 1 Timothy 3–4 for ethical leadership (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3745410). Robbins, V.  K. (1996). Exploring the texture of texts: A guide to socio-rhetorical interpretation. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press. Russell, M. (2012, August 28). Former Ogilvy creative director Russ Alben dies. Advertising Age. Retrieved from https://adage.com/article/people-players/ ogilvy-creative-director-russ-alben-dies/236893 Schaubroek, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., … Peng, A. C. (2002). Embedding ethical leadership within and across organizational levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1053–1078. Serrano, C. A. (2017). Leadership fatigue: What new leaders can learn from an old king. Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press. Sheffield, R. (2016, September 21). 100 greatest TV shows of all times. Retrieved from https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-lists/100-greatest-tv-shows-ofall-time-105998/er-110349/

1  WHAT’S SO HARD ABOUT LEADERSHIP? STRESS, CRISIS, TRAUMA… 

13

Sorkin, A., Caddell, P. (Writers), Misiano, C. (Director). (2001). The fall’s gonna kill ya [Television series episode]. In P.  Caddell et  al. (Producers), The West Wing. Burbank, CA: Warner Brothers Television. Stanley, A. (2018). Irresistible: Reclaiming the new that Jesus unleashed for the world. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Suneson, G. (2019, February 4). NFL teams that always fire their coaches. MSN Sports. Retrieved from https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-teamsthat-always-fire-their-coaches/ss-BBTbiOm Tanner, M., Wherry, J., & Zvonkovic, A. (2013). Clergy who experience trauma as a result of forced termination. Journal of Religion & Health, 52(4), 1281–1295. Teo, W. L., Lee, M., & Lim, W. S. (2017). The relational activation of resilience model: How leadership activates resilience in an organizational crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(3), 136–147. Woodworth, S. L. (2019). Why do some pastors sabotage their own ministries? Christianity Today. Retrieved from https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2019/june-web-exclusives/why-do-some-pastors-sabotage-their-ownministries.html Zheng, D., Witt, L., Waite, E., David, E. M., van Driel, M., McDonald, D. P., & Crepeau, L. J. (2015). Effects of ethical leadership on emotional exhaustion in high moral intensity situations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 732–748.

CHAPTER 2

Amazing Grace: The Bible and the Gift of Leadership

Why Does Leadership Exist in the First Place? Every superhero has an origin story. For example, Dr. Bruce Banner did not just decide to wake up one day, turn green, quadruple in physical size, and start smashing things. Before he became my favorite superhero, The Incredible Hulk, he was nothing other than a pure researcher working in his lab when suddenly he was exposed to something that forever changed his life. While I will not go as far as to equate all leaders to superheroes (although some are super indeed), I will say that every leader has an origin story. For some, the idea of leadership development runs contrary to long-­ held beliefs that leadership exists for a select few. This line of reasoning neglects the multi-dimensional aspects of leadership that transcend personality and charisma. An intrinsic desire to serve, personality factors, and an inherent charisma work in combination to position some to become leaders. For others, exposure to an event, environment, or population serves as the backdrop for leadership formation. Leaders are not born with all the abilities and characteristics of leadership, yet everyone possesses the capacity to lead at some level. This concept includes personal leadership, leadership in the home, and the most common application of leadership: the organization. While the ever-growing interest in leadership aids in its growth as a field, this has produced a myriad of questions and problems, the most critical of which we covered in Chap. 1. To move forward in the

© The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2_2

15

16 

C. A. SERRANO

fight against leadership fatigue, we should go back to the origin story: Where does leadership come from? Moreover, why does leadership exist in the first place? Some scholars start their exploration of leadership by mentioning, at least in passing, Great Man Theory, or by discussing the origins of psychology as it relates to the field of leadership. However, for the Christian leader, it is appropriate to go back to the beginning of the Christian worldview to explore the origins and original intentions of leadership.

Genesis and the First Leader In the beginning, God created, and it was all good until one day, it was not. Before everything came crashing down, God instructed humanity to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Inherent in these instructions, known in some circles as the dominion mandate, is the first leadership assignment in history. In one sentence, God established the first institution (the home) and the primary vocation (creation stewardship). Within that framework, God served as leader of all, Adam served as head of the human family, and Adam and Eve served as managers of creation. Thus, God’s original design for humankind was not for them to rule over each other, nor was it for them to lead other humans outside of the family unit. In the beginning, God saw creation, and it was all good, so much so that he called it so. Then, in one failure of leadership, everything changed. Per the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, sin entered the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. However, it is essential to remember one critical element of that story, found in the first pericope of Genesis chapter three: Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a

2  AMAZING GRACE: THE BIBLE AND THE GIFT OF LEADERSHIP 

17

delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. (Gen. 3:1–6)

Read verse 6 one more time. Although the woman is often the focal point in this story, it was Adam, the leader of the family, who failed. He failed to manage creation by allowing the serpent to interfere in their mandate, and he was unable to lead his family by allowing Eve to enter into a conversation of compromise. Given this failure, God quickly set out to put His plan of redemption in place. In Genesis 3:15 God introduces humanity and the serpent to the Good News: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. This protoevangelium, or first telling of the Gospel, established God’s divine strategy for fixing that which humanity messed up in the first place. God promised that a leader would arise, one who was fully divine and fully human, and that leader would make everything new again. From this point forward in the scriptures, God used human leaders as a type of stop-gap until the fullness of his plan found fulfillment in Christ.

Leadership in the Hebrew Scriptures For the Christian, it is crucial to understand the Hebrew roots of Jesus Christ to fully grasp the context of New Covenant leadership, as exemplified by the Apostles Peter, James, and Paul. There are several types of leaders found in the Old Testament, the first of which is the patriarchal leader. In the Ancient Near East (ANE), men, namely fathers, played a critical role in leading and governing their immediate families, tribes, and clans. In Genesis, the story of Noah gives us some of the earliest accounts of this type of leadership in action. Noah’s leadership involved strategic thinking, attention to detail, and the communication of a healthy and compelling vision. Noah also led through arguably the most extensive global crisis in the history of the world: The Flood. According to the Biblical account, Noah dealt with the organizational complexities of saving every species of animal, and he also had to oversee a massive construction project, all while leading his family in a hostile culture. In Noah’s story, we get a glimpse of what it was like for one of the earliest biblical

18 

C. A. SERRANO

leaders to stand before God as an individual (Rendtorff, 1999). Noah’s righteousness and obedience set the stage for God’s redemptive plan throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Three major religious groups accept Abraham as being the father of the Jewish faith and the first of the Hebrews. Like Noah, much of Abraham’s leadership took place within the context of his family and the patriarchy. He was a wealthy shepherd who managed a large organization up until the time of his death. Abraham also led one of the Bible’s first well-­documented military campaigns when he led his clan into the skirmish between the five kings of the Dead Sea and the four kings of Mesopotamia (Gichon & Herzog, 1997). Abraham’s two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, went on to become successful and wealthy leaders, with the former carrying on the covenantal vision of his father, Abraham. Isaac’s youngest son, Jacob (later renamed Israel), was not only a crafty businessman and manager but also the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. It is in Genesis 37 that we are introduced to Jacob’s second from the youngest son—Joseph. One could argue that Joseph’s story is the first bona fide account of God raising a leader through adversity and for the benefit of many generations. Joseph’s story is important to the discussion of resilience in leadership because it outlines just how much character and morals can positively impact ethical decision-making. His leadership also marked the first time that the Bible mentions a Hebrew ascending to a place of political leadership or governing leadership. Joseph overcame physical persecution from his brothers, slavery, false imprisonment, and harsh socio-economic conditions. Yet, despite all of this, Joseph patiently applied his God-given wisdom to complex problems, which resulted in an economic strategy that saved not just the nation of Egypt, but most of the surrounding countries during a time of prolonged famine. Joseph could have chosen to respond to his suffering by becoming bitter or worse, taking revenge on those who sought to do him harm (Crowther, 2018). Instead, Joseph put on a posture of humility and followed his God-ordained call, ever-aware that God could take what one meant for evil and turn it into something useful (Genesis 50:20). Along with patriarchal and governing leaders, there were also charismatic leaders found in the Old Testament. Although Abraham is the father of the Jewish people, there is little doubt that Moses was the most excellent leader in the history of the Jewish people. Moses is most often associated with leading the Israelites out of Egypt. However, there is more to his story than just miracles, plagues, and manna. In Moses’ story, a myriad of

2  AMAZING GRACE: THE BIBLE AND THE GIFT OF LEADERSHIP 

19

leadership and management strategies are outlined, such as the importance of delegation, supply chain management, organizational design, and human resource management. We will discuss him in detail in Chap. 3. Moses’ protégé and assistant, Joshua, is arguably the third most influential leader found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Joshua finished the task of leading the Israelites into the Promised Land by way of strategic military leadership. Joshua’s story connects to succession planning in leadership, mentoring, and leadership emergence. We will discuss Joshua in Chap. 4. It is important to note that the entire Book of Judges outlines several leaders who served primarily as military leaders in the time between Joshua’s leadership and the establishment of the Israelite monarchy. Samuel, who some argue was the last true Judge of Israel, will be discussed in Chap. 5. Samuel’s story has implications for leadership transitions, organizational design change, and legacy leadership. Once the Israelite monarchy began, it did not take long for leadership failure to take place at the highest levels. This point is where Israel’s greatest King enters the stage of world history. Within the story of King David, we find a connection with organizational growth, post-traumatic stress, ethical and moral failures, and hostile takeovers. We will discuss King David in Chap. 6.

Leadership in the Christian Scriptures There is one prominent leader in the Christian Scriptures: Jesus. However, it is essential to discuss the leadership climate of the time of Christ to understand leadership in the New Testament better. Several cultural subgroups within ancient Judaism often fought for political and social leadership during the time of Christ. Most notable were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. For example, the Pharisees were a devoutly religious group that emphasized strict adherence to the Law of Moses. I like to think of the Pharisees as the cliché bureaucrats of Jesus’ day. The Sadducees were simultaneously religious and political. Together with the Pharisees, they served on a leadership body known as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was a judicial assembly that met on the Temple Mount in Ancient Jerusalem. Their homogenous makeup and strong ideologies predisposed them to the poor decision-making associated with groupthink (Schnall & Greenberg, 2012). The Essenes were so passionate about their interpretation of the Law of God that they chose to isolate themselves from anything that might stain them with sin (Scott, 1995). This predominantly male group of monastic-like Jews lived in highly organized and isolated

20 

C. A. SERRANO

communities (Essenes, 2018; Metso, 2009). The Zealots stood in favor of violently overthrowing their current culture, the ever-encroaching Roman rule, to usher in the way of living. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots lived within what Josephus called a theocracy, yet they had significant differences in what life, leadership, and organization should look like in Ancient Israel (Spilsbury, 2017). How do these groups relate to the Christ-influenced leadership of the New Testament? The Church has historically responded to cultural difficulties and uncertainty in two ways, both of which mirror the leadership of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day: Domination or Isolation. The dominating leaders of the New Testament period sought to control through force (Zealots), morality and religion (Pharisees), or political maneuvering (Sadducees). The isolating leaders sought to manage through the building of cultural, and sometimes literal, walls by way of religious rule-keeping (Pharisees) or physical separation (Essenes). However, Jesus modeled a third way, which greatly influenced the key leaders of the New Testament and subsequently influenced all the leadership lessons and principles that draw from the 27 books of the Christian Scriptures. To the Pharisees, Jesus taught a form of leadership that flowed from mercy, service, and love (Matt. 23). Jesus challenged the Sadducees’ temporal perspective by reminding them that their religion demands an eternal perspective: resurrection (Matt. 22:23–32). Jesus lived in bold opposition to Essene culture by spending time with individuals who were deemed morally corrupt by the theocratic powers that be (Luke 7:34). In Jesus, the Zealots found one who accepted them and their desire for a new kingdom yet discouraged their methods (Matt. 10:4;26:52). As opposed to leading via domination or isolation, Jesus led via the incarnation. Incarnational leadership does not separate the leader from the led, but rather allows the leader to get close to the rhythms, problems, and personalities of followers (Hirsch & Catchim, 2012). By “becoming flesh and dwelling among them,” Jesus inaugurated a leadership style that represented the ideal state of all the current ethical, virtuous, and moral leadership theories combined (John 1:14). For example, Jesus was the perfect servant leader in that he willingly gave of himself from a place of selflessness, love, and personal sacrifice (Greenleaf, 2002). He was the quintessential authentic leader in that he was relationally transparent, driven by a moral perspective, and maintained an ever-present self-awareness (Weischer, Weibler, & Petersen, 2013). If morals involve right thinking and ethics involves the right behavior, then, in Jesus, it is evident that we

2  AMAZING GRACE: THE BIBLE AND THE GIFT OF LEADERSHIP 

21

find the standard for ethical and moral leadership. By emptying himself of power while simultaneously calling others to follow him, Jesus presented the world with a leadership paradigm that is both kenotic and mimetic (Bekker, 2007). Of course, Jesus developed and inspired his followers to accomplish a mission so large that it shook up the entire world. Thus, in Jesus, we see the fullness of strong transformational leadership. Thanks to the authors of the New Testament, we can learn about what it means to be a Christian leader from a historically reliable and morally consistent source. One cannot separate the Bible from the time and space in which it was originally written. While the Bible does indeed transcend history, it is still historical because when God spoke, he spoke to real people in a real place in real time (Oswalt, 2009). Even though individual books of the Bible are explicitly historical (1 & 2 Samuel, Joshua, Acts, etc.), this does not lessen the place of history and the leadership lessons we learn from history in the poetry or prophetic books (Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). The books of the New Testament are no exception. In them, as with the Hebrew Scriptures, we learn about the original leadership structure of the Church and of how the first ecclesial leaders overcame adversity. Of the 12 original Apostles of Jesus Christ, three rose to positions of documented leadership: Peter, James, and John. The Apostle Peter stands head and shoulders above the other Apostles when it comes to leadership and influence in the early Church. Crowther’s (2012) extensive volume on Petrine Leadership demonstrates that several contemporary theories connect to the Apostle’s later writings. We will discuss Peter in detail in Chap. 7. The Apostle James, the brother of the Apostle John, was killed very early in the life of the Church (Acts 12). However, another James, namely James, the brother of Jesus, became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and led the Church through one of the most important moments of church history. We will explore the leadership of James in Chap. 8. It is worth discussing what seems like a glaring omission in our Biblical exploration of resilience in leadership: The Apostle Paul. The Apostle Paul is responsible not only for writing 48 percent of the New Testament, but also for establishing the Christian Church beyond the borders of ancient Israel. One could argue that Pauline leadership is synonymous with selfless service. Paul never used the word leader to describe himself. Instead, Paul always referred to himself as a servant or slave. However, Paul was aware of his “high status among fellow believers” due to his calling as a servant of the Gospel and his Christ-ordained apostleship (Clarke, 2008, p. 83). Paul may not have described himself as a leader in the Greco-Roman sense

22 

C. A. SERRANO

of the word, yet he did speak and led as one with authority as a spiritual father, an apostle, and a minister of the Gospel. Paul’s leadership was all about stabilizing and unifying the Church, especially in the face of adversity (Barentsen, 2011). His second letter to the Church at Corinth offers excellent insight into the uncertainty, difficulty, and hardship that he faced as a leader: Five times I received at the hands of the Jews, the forty lashes less one. 25  Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant? (2 Corinthians 11:24–29)

Paul argued that every member of the Church played a critical role in the effectiveness of the Church, which included the role of suffering well as a part of the Body of Christ. For Paul, enduring hardship was the true mark of a Christ-follower: “For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10). One could argue that Pauline leadership stands as the foundation for all Christian leadership development. However, since Pauline theology informs most of the New Testament outside of the Gospels, one chapter in a book on Biblical principles for resilience in leadership is not enough to do justice to all that we can learn from the Apostle Paul. Yet, there is one key component to Paul’s teaching that bridges the origin story of leadership from the Genesis account, through the history of the New Testament Christians, and into the twenty-first century: The spiritual gift of leadership.

The Gift of Leadership Leadership comes from God. Nowhere is this more evident than in the New Testament descriptions of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are three lists of spiritual gifts found in Paul’s letters (Romans 12:3–8; 1 Corinthians 12:4–11; and Ephesians 4:11–14). The words frequently translated into

2  AMAZING GRACE: THE BIBLE AND THE GIFT OF LEADERSHIP 

23

Table 2.1  Paul’s list of spiritual gifts Romans 12:3–8

1 Corinthians 12:4–11

Ephesians 4:11–14

Acts of mercy Exhorting Generosity Leadership Prophecy Service Teaching

Administrating Apostles Discernment Faith Healing Helping Interpreting tongues Knowledge Miraculous works Prophecy Speaking in tongues Teachers Wisdom

Apostles Evangelists Prophets Shepherds Teachers

gifts in these letters are charis or charisma. The latter translates into the word grace. Grace refers to an unmerited and underserved gift of God. This word is most commonly associated with salvation. Yet, Paul uses this term to describe how God chose to equip the Church for life, mission, and ministry. Table 2.1 outlines these graces of God. It is important to note that some element of leadership exists in all three of these lists of spiritual gifts. In this context, lead means to manage or to have authority over others. Leadership is such a central component of Church life in Pauline ecclesiology that the entire Ephesian’s spiritual gifts list speaks of leaders. These leaders are not lords, but rather servants who give of themselves for the sake of the mission of God and the people of God. We will briefly revisit Paul in Chap. 9. Every superhero has an origin story, and most of those stories involve some time of gift that first appeared as a curse. For Spider-Man, it was a bite. For the Incredible Hulk, it was exposure to gamma rays. What started as a tragedy eventually leveraged for the betterment of others. This concept is precisely what leadership is for us today. The words lead, leaders, and leadership are used approximately 361 times in the entire Bible. All those instances are worth noting and studying. However, for the sake of time, it is important to state that leadership is a gift that comes from God for the help of his people and the advancement of his mission. I am restating

24 

C. A. SERRANO

this point because, as we have already established, leadership is hard and traumatic. Leaders fail. Leaders fall. Yet as we dig deeper into the life and leadership of various characters from the Hebrew and Christians Scriptures, we cannot forget that it is God himself who ordained leadership. It was not in God’s original plan for humans to lead outside of the family unit. However, God saw fit to use the gift of leadership to help fix a mess that started in Genesis chapter 3. So, let us return to the beginning and zoom in our first case: Moses.

References Barentsen, J. (2011). Emerging leadership in the Pauline mission: A social identity perspective on local leadership development in Corinth and Ephesus. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. Bekker, C. J. (2007, May). Sharing the incarnation: Towards a model of mimetic Christological leadership. In Servant leadership research roundtable. Clarke, A.  D. (2008). A Pauline theology of church leadership. London, UK: T&T Clark. Crowther, S. (2012). Peter on leadership: A contemporary exegetical analysis. Fayetteville, NC: Steven Crowther. Crowther, S. (2018). Biblical servant leadership: An exploration of leadership for the contemporary context. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US. Essenes. (2018). In P. Lagasse, & Columbia University, The Columbia encyclopedia (8th ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Gichon, M., & Herzog, C. (1997). Battles of the Bible. Don Mills, ON: Stoddart. Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership (25th anniversary edition): A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Hirsch, A., & Catchim, T. (2012). The permanent revolution: Apostolic imagination and practice for the 21st century church (Vol. 57). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Metso, S. (2009). Problems in reconstructing the organizational chart of the Essenes. Dead Sea Discoveries, 16(3), 388–415. Oswalt, J. N. (2009). The Bible among the myths: Unique revelation or just ancient literature? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Rendtorff, R. (1999). Noah, Abraham and Moses: God’s covenant partners. In In search of true wisdom: Essays in Old Testament interpretation in honour of Ronald E Clements (pp. 127–136). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Schnall, E., & Greenberg, M. J. (2012). Groupthink and the Sanhedrin. Journal of Management History, 18(3), 285–294. Scott, J. J. (1995). Jewish backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Spilsbury, P. (2017). Jewish theocracy and the Zealots. Crux, 53(1), 28–36. Weischer, A. E., Weibler, J., & Petersen, M. (2013). “To thine own self be true”: The effects of enactment and life storytelling on perceived leader authenticity. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 477–495.

CHAPTER 3

When Bigger Is Not Better: Moses the Shepherd

How Did Moses End Up Leading in the First Place? I have a love/hate relationship with deserts. I have lived in the Mojave Desert of Southern California, the Arabian Desert of Kuwait, and the steamy alluvial plains of Iraq. Although I only lived in the desert or desert-­ like environments for roughly four years, I did learn a universal truth about deserts: Deserts are beautifully desolate. I grew up in West-Central, Florida, so I have a deep appreciation for topography that is not flat and green. The vastness of the desert is humbling and awe-inspiring. Yet at the same time, the heat, the dryness, and the insanely fierce creatures that inhabit the desert make it a terrifying place. I love the desert for its beauty. I hate the desert for its hardship. However, I also am aware that all great leaders in the Bible have an intimate connection with the desert or desert-­ like environments. For example, in the Hebrew Scriptures, we learn that God called Abram to leave what we now know of as Southeastern Iraq and settle in that land that would become Israel (Gen. 12:1–9). Even King David found refuge in the Judean Wilderness when he fled for his life from King Saul (1 Sam. 23:14–15). In the Christian Scriptures, John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah as “The voice of one calling: In the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord” (Matt. 3:1–3). By the way, this is the same wilderness that served as a 40-day crucible for Jesus prior to his public ministry (Matt. 4:1–11). The desert experience is synonymous with times of testing, and no leader better encapsulates this idea than Moses. © The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2_3

25

26 

C. A. SERRANO

As stated earlier, Moses is arguably the greatest leader in Jewish history. Researchers have compared him with transformational leadership, servant leadership, political leadership, and business leadership (Crowther, 2018; Herskovitz & Klein, 1999; Wolak, 2016). Moses has been popularized in film and text as an example of bold leadership. However, his story does not begin in Israel but rather in Egypt. The biblical record of Moses’ life starts in the Book of Exodus. It is important to keep in mind that Moses is credited as the author of the first five books of the Bible, also known as the Torah. On the one hand, this makes any evidence about his life and leadership biased since it is autobiographical. On the other hand, if bias is what Moses was going for, then there are vast sections of failure that he should have left out. Thus, we can trust what the Bible teaches us about Moses from a platform of common sense and the scholarship on his life. How did Moses end up leading in the first place? God called him to leadership, Moses had a desire to lead (initially), and he developed in the very desert context where most of his leadership took place.

Issues of Perfectionism: The Importance of Timing in Leadership Although there is not a lot of detail on Moses’ parents, the Bible does tell us that their names were Amram and Jochebed and that they were faced with an immediate crisis when their son was born (Ex. 2:1–3; 6:20). A massive increase in the Israelite population led the Egyptian king to enslave all Israelites living in Egypt forcefully. When slavery failed to stop the population growth of the Hebrews, the Egyptian king decided to employ infanticide to eliminate the Israelites. Thus, Moses was what South African comedian Trevor Noah would say, “Born a Crime.” Not only was his life technically illegal, but he was also an instant slave. However, Jochebed hid baby Moses, and in a God-ordained plot twist, the baby who should have been at worst murdered and, at best, a slave ended up living as the grandson of the Pharaoh. The leadership qualities of Moses are evident at the outset of his adult life. Upon seeing an injustice toward the Hebrew people by the Egyptians, Moses decided to take matters into his own hands by killing an abusive Egyptian taskmaster. One could argue that Moses acted out of selfless service toward his fellow Hebrews. However, the fact that Moses “looked

3  WHEN BIGGER IS NOT BETTER: MOSES THE SHEPHERD 

27

this way and that” before intervening suggests that there was some measure of self-preservation involved in his intervention (Ex. 2:12). Moses had a sense that he was the one to lead the Hebrews out of slavery, yet his impetuous presumption did not sit well with the Hebrew people. His timing was off. Thus God, by way of Pharaoh’s quest for revenge, sent Moses to the one place where he could develop the critical skills needed for his excellent leadership assignment: The desert. During my time in the deserts of the Middle East, I learned a lot about self-leadership (hydrate and eat or die), isolation (I was thousands of miles away from my wife and son), and the threat of fire (it is dry and there is limited water). I am sure that Moses learned these same lessons during his 40 years of tending sheep on the backside of the Sinai Desert in the Western Arabian Peninsula. Food and water, isolation, and fire would play a critical role in the rest of the biblical account of Moses’ life and leadership. During his 40 years of living amongst the Midianites, Moses took a wife (Zipporah) and started a family. During one long excursion through the wilderness with his father-in-law’s flock, Moses ended up at a desert mountain range that would eventually become the most crucial piece of real estate in Moses’ life. Since a fire in the desert is not typically a good thing, it is no wonder that Moses, seeing the burning bush, decided to investigate. The rest of the story, including Moses’ conversation with God, God’s instructions to Moses, and the power of Moses’ staff, is interesting. The plagues, the miracles, the truth spoken to power, and the parting of the Red Sea are essential elements of a proper biographical sketch of the life of Moses. However, our purpose is to discuss Moses in the light of resilience and leadership fatigue, which means we must fast forward to the critical leadership moments in his story post-Egypt.

Issues of Performance: When Good Enough Is Not Good Enough Numerical growth is often looked upon as an excellent problem to have in the life of an organization. In many ways, bigger is indeed better. However, as an organization scales, its leaders must address a multitude of systemic and cultural challenges for the organization to operate at a high capacity. All of this makes perfect sense for the twenty-first-century manager. However, imagine being the very first leader of a nation. Imagine this nation did not know that it was a nation until you showed up and called it

28 

C. A. SERRANO

so. Imagine being promoted from the position of household manager to a national spokesperson, to the sole leader of the organization, in a little less than a year. Now, imagine that the organization that you oversee consists of an estimated 1.5 to 2 million members. Bigger is not always better, especially when you are unprepared for the organizational complexities that often accompany “bigger.” That is precisely the organizational context that Moses stepped into when he obeyed God, challenged Pharaoh, and led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Deserts of Sinai. Moses faced his first logistical crises within a couple of months of the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea. According to the US Department of Interior’s Geological Survey, the average American uses 80–100 gallons of water a day. The US Department of Agriculture suggests that the average American consumes around 10 ounces of meat a day. Although it is challenging to compare ancient Israelites to modern Americans, even cutting those consumption numbers in half still leaves Moses with the task of supporting his people with 40 million gallons of water and 5 million ounces of meat a day. As the supplies began to run low, one can only imagine the amount of pressure and stress that Moses must have felt. The situation became so desperate that the people started grumbling against Moses (Ex. 15:24), and they talked of returning to Egypt (Ex. 16:1–3). The size of this revolt cannot be understated. This revolt is not just a handful of mid-level managers who are unhappy with the CEO. This revolt is the entire nation rising to grumble and complain. The last time Moses intervened between two disputing Hebrews, things did not turn out so well (Ex. 2:11–15). Now, a much larger group of disgruntled Hebrews is looking to him for guidance. According to Olson (2004), “The crisis of the wilderness involves the material reality of basic human needs and the profound anxiety that results when there is no visible means by which those needs can be met” (p. 317). For the Hebrew congregation, it was not good enough to be free from abuse and slavery. The pressures of their immediate needs outweighed the burdens they felt as brick-makers in Egypt. Yet, standing in between all the tension was Moses. Instead of caving in to the pressure, Moses followed a pattern that kept him ethically and morally secure throughout much of the Exodus narrative: He turned to God. Morals and ethics influence all human behavior. Morals and ethics are intricately woven together within the spectrum of leadership. Morals are the underlying beliefs that influence behavior. Or to put it another way, beliefs (morals), impact behavior (ethics). The former involves the content

3  WHEN BIGGER IS NOT BETTER: MOSES THE SHEPHERD 

29

of right and wrong, whereas the latter consists of the process of determining and acting on right and wrong (Rae, 2009). Since the Word of God is the source of all that is indeed moral and ethical, it makes sense that Moses first turned to God when faced with the food and water crisis (Ex. 15:25). In fact, Moses turned to God and obeyed God’s directives every time he faced an organizational crisis between Exodus 15 and Numbers 20. This turning to God involved prayer (Ex. 15:25; 17:4; 32:11–14), openness to the voice of God (Ex. 16:4; 17:5), obedience (Ex. 17:6), wise counsel (Ex. 18:1–27), and spiritual solitude (Ex. 19:3). Moses turned to God when leading an army of former slaves against the battle-hardened Amalekites (Ex. 17:8–16). Moses turned to God despite the newness and awesomeness of the manifest presence of God in the Israelite community (Ex. 19:16–25). Moses turned to God when the Israelites responded to his absence by worshiping a Golden Calf (Ex. 32:1–11). It was Moses’ intimate time with God that yielded the Law that would serve to organize the civil and religious life of the newly formed nation of Israel. Moses turned to God until one day; he did not.

Issues of People Pleasing: How One Bad Day Can Ruin Everything A lot can happen in 39 years. In fact, at the time of this writing, I have been alive for just over 39 years. Rather than bore you with the details of my entire life, let us focus on the radical shifts that happened in Moses’ life during the time of wandering in the desert. After a year at the foot of Mount Sinai, the Israelite nation set off toward the Promised Land. This land is the same land that God promised to their patriarchs in what is now known as Israel. However, during a reconnaissance mission into this Promised Land, the Israelites became very afraid because 10 Hebrew spies oversold the risk of occupying the new land. Because of this lack of faith, Moses led the Israelites into a season of roaming the desert. One could argue that this time was a strategic season of spiritual, civil, and relational formation designed to prepare a nation of slaves to become a nation of God-fearing and self-sustaining people. During this period of wandering, the Israelites were led by a pillar of fire at night and a cloud during the day (Ex. 13:17–22). The journey in the wilderness was a large and logistically complex operation that involved that strategic disassembly of the Tabernacle as well as the maneuvering of over 2 million people, various

30 

C. A. SERRANO

animals, tents, and all the trappings associated with nomadic living. Near the end of these almost 40 years of wandering, Moses and the Israelites faced a crisis that mirrored their first logistical crisis as a people. Once again, there was no water. However, unlike the first time, the people did not complain to Moses about being thirsty. Instead, they questioned the entire purpose of their time in the desert (Helfgot, 1993). It is important to note that by this time in the narrative, most of those who were alive during the crossing of the Red Sea had already perished in the desert. Thus, Moses’ leadership crisis was more profound than just the felt needs of hunger and thirst. The real crisis involved the very mission, vision, and values of the Israelite people. Here, Moses had a chance to serve as a spiritual leader. Spiritual leaders connect organizational mission, vision, and values in a way that inspires followers to work from a sense of calling. Since the new generation of Israelites had lost sight (or never had a view) of God’s purpose for them in the wilderness, they chose to question the very meaning of their connection to Moses and the Exodus. In this instance, Moses had an opportunity to infuse “hope, faith, and a culture of altruistic love” into the nation of Israel (Gümüsay, 2018, p. 8). Instead, Moses’ responds in a manner that is both uncharacteristic of his previous behavior and costly to his position of leadership. As with the first two water crises, Moses turned to God. God responded by instructing Moses: Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water. So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to the congregation and their cattle. (Nu. 20:8)

However, instead of speaking to the rock as commanded by God, Moses broke character, spoke to the people harshly, and acted rashly by striking the rock two times (Nu. 20:9–11). As a result, God informed Moses that due to his disobedience, he would not get to lead the Israelites into the Promise Land. After all that Moses had been through from Pharaoh’s family to shepherding to the miracles of the Exodus, he found himself facing the same penalty as all the other Israelites who had failed to trust God. What could make a leader turn away from the healthy practices of involved prayer, openness to the voice of God, obedience, wise counsel, and spiritual solitude? A lot can happen in 39 years, and I believe that the pressures of performance, the stress of carrying the vision of God, and the lack of organizational buy-in from the Israelites caused Moses to cave in, even if

3  WHEN BIGGER IS NOT BETTER: MOSES THE SHEPHERD 

31

but for a moment. The fatigue of leading a thankless, fickle, and short-­ sided group of people caused Moses to go against everything that he typically stood for, and it costs him everything. Thankfully, Moses bounced back from this failure, which demonstrates that it is possible for high-­ profile leaders of large organizations to course correct and lead with integrity after experiencing the effects of leadership fatigue.

Resilience Lessons from Moses The biblical account of Moses’ life is full of connections to the world of organizational leadership. Moses stepped in for the Israelites during a time of crisis, much like the textbook charismatic leader. Moses selflessly risked his own life for the people of Israel in the vein of servant leadership. He also demonstrated a keen awareness of his limitations per the principles of authentic leadership. However, I believe that the most relevant lessons from his life revolve around leadership fatigue and resilience. Here are three lessons on resilience that we can take away from his story. Lesson One: Beware the Power of the Crowd  Group conflict is a normal part of any organization and may form as the result of personality differences, environmental changes, stuckness, or a variety of paradoxical tensions (Gillette & McCollom, 1995). When these tensions arise, leaders need to use the conflict as fuel for the future for innovation and growth since conflict is nothing more than a “fluctuation in the ongoing systems and group agents” (Andrade, Plowman, & Duchon, 2008, p. 27). Instead of trying to avoid the conflict actively, leaders may benefit from redeeming or repurposing conflict for the greater good of the group mission. This repurposing is precisely what Moses did when facing the pressure of the crowd in the past. In Numbers 12:1–2, his brother and sister challenged his leadership due to his marriage to a Cushite woman. In Numbers 14:4, the people said, “Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt” because they were afraid of the occupants of the Land of Canaan. In both cases, Moses did not respond to his siblings or the people of Israel by giving in to their demands. Moses did not disobey God. Instead, he prayed for them and led on (Num. 12:13; 14:13–19). In another case, 250 well-known Israelite leaders rose to rebel against the leadership of Moses (Num. 16:1–2). Although Moses was justifiably angry with these rebels, he did not give in to their demands or disobey God’s directions. Instead, he turned to God and led the people according to God’s instructions. As if 250

32 

C. A. SERRANO

were not enough, eventually, the entire congregation rose to complain about Moses’ leadership. Again, Moses turned toward God instead of giving in to the pressure of the crowd. As a leader, there are times when the loudest voice in the room will win. Just because the majority of a group favors change, it does not mean that the methodologies for change are good, moral, and for the betterment of the organization. Bottom line: there is no guarantee that the loudest voices in the room are always right. Therefore, it is critical to have a moral and ethical compass that serves as a true north. For modern leaders, I believe that the principles associated with ethical leadership, authentic leadership, servant leadership, and transformational leadership offer a true north for leader health. For Moses, closeness to God, obedience to God’s commands, and delegation/teamwork worked in combination to form a moral compass that always pointed Moses toward health. For whatever reason, by the time he arrived at the waters of Meribah in Numbers 20, Moses lost sight of the one constant in his life, and he willingly disobeyed a God who up until that point had made it very clear that his word was to be followed down to the letter. Resilience is not just about bouncing back, but it is also about standing up under pressure. The values inherent in servant leadership, authentic leadership, transformational leadership, and ethical leadership are not just academic principles that serve to define various theories. When lived out, they may serve as guardrails that protect leaders from the effects of leadership fatigue. Leaders can stand up to the pressure of the crowd by standing firm on a foundation that never shifts. Lesson Two: Share the Load Early and Often  Early on in Moses’ leadership, his father-in-law Jethro taught him the power of delegation (Ex. 18). Up until that point, Moses was personally overseeing the resolution of all types of disputes amongst the people. This activity is not sustainable in an organization of 20–50 people, let alone a group of 2 million people. Yet, the people still felt that Moses was the one they could bring all their issues too. In Numbers 11, the people complained about the hardship of the desert and about all the free bread that they were forced to eat. They wanted meat! Moses was so burned out by the murmuring of the people that he expressed a thought that contains all the signs of leadership fatigue. Moses said to God: 13 Where am I to get meat to give all this people? For they weep before me and say, “Give us meat, that we may eat.” 14 I am not able to carry all this

3  WHEN BIGGER IS NOT BETTER: MOSES THE SHEPHERD 

33

people alone; the burned is too heavy for me. 15 If you will treat me like this, kill me at once, if I find favor in your sight, that I may not see my wretchedness. (Num. 11:13–15)

Moses was not the last leader to choose death over carrying the weight of leadership. Psychologist Prudy Gourguechon (2018) suggests that even entrepreneurs are susceptible to suicidal ideation and action due to the pressures of life and leadership. However, what got Moses through this low point was not just the spiritual act of taking his problems to God. Modern research on burnout suggests that religious leaders are better equipped to cope with the numerous stressors of their job in comparison to other people-focused vocations such as law enforcement or health care (Adams, Hough, Proeschold-bell, Yao, & Kolkin, 2017). This burnout could be due in part to the reliance that religious leaders have on a higher power and a higher set of principles. Depersonalization and emotional exhaustion are also core components of burnout (Cox, Tisserand, & Tariz, 2005). Thus, it makes sense that what got Moses through this low point in leadership was the inclusion of other leaders in the process of managing the Hebrew people: Then the Lord said to Moses, “Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. 17 And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone. (Num. 11:16–17) 16

God used other people to help lighten the load. If isolation is often a precursor to emotional un-health, then it makes sense to find power in numbers. Resilient leaders do not try to lead alone. Instead, they understand the internal and external benefits of delegation, empowerment, and team-­based operations. Sharing the load does not mean drifting into laissez-faire leadership or strict top-down hierarchies where the praise flows upwards, and the mess flows downhill. Sharing the load means identifying, developing, and empowering others to help navigate the complexities of organizational life. Lesson Three: Finish Strong Anyway  Even though Moses did not get to enter the Promised Land, he did not stop leading the people. Immediately after Moses’ failure at the Waters of Meribah, he once again led the

34 

C. A. SERRANO

Israelites toward the Promised Land. After all that God had done for the Israelites and after all that he did through Moses, the people still found a reason to grumble and complain. The atmosphere was perfect for Moses to quit altogether once again. Yet in this final episode of grumbling against Moses, he returned to the practices that had sustained his leadership pre-­ Numbers 20: 4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.” 6 Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze[c] serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live. (Num. 21:4–9)

Notice the similarities between Numbers 21:4–9, Numbers 20:2–9, and Exodus 15:22–26, and Exodus 17:1–7. In each of the cases, the people had a need (water and food), the people grumbled against Moses, Moses prayed to God, and God responded. The only difference is that in all but one of these instances, Moses followed God’s instructions carefully and precisely (Num. 20:10–13). Organizational leaders will always face meeting the needs of their followers and responding to the environmental needs of the organization. However, one way to safeguard against the fatigue that inevitably comes from the demands of leadership is to have a set of principles that are never compromised. God warned Moses in Exodus 15:26: 26 saying, “If you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, your healer.”

Although there were many battles to come, Moses served as the primary leader for at least four critical campaigns before the Israelites crossed the

3  WHEN BIGGER IS NOT BETTER: MOSES THE SHEPHERD 

35

Jordan River. He led the battle of Hormah against King Arad, the battle against King Sihon of the Amorites, the Battle of King Og of Bashan (Num. 21), and the battle against Midian (Num. 31). He also continued to serve as the spiritual leader of an entirely new generation of Israelites who knew nothing of Egypt or the year at the foot of Sinai. Moses eventually gave Joshua some of his authority, but this is at the very end of his life (Num. 27:18–23). Still, up until his very last day, Moses proved that it is possible for a leader to both stand up under pressure and bounce back from setbacks. Resilience in leadership does not happen organically; it happens by design. Leaders will go through desert experiences because organizational life if full of environmental uncertainty, stress, and the complexities that come with working with human beings. Leadership is hard and traumatic. As we have seen in Moses, closeness to God does not automatically make one immune to failure in leadership. Moses talked with God face to face, and yet he still succumbed to anger, frustration, and the fatigue of leading (Ex. 33:11). Moreover, having a team does not automatically mean that one is immune to failure. Moses’ brother Aaron, Joshua the son of Nun, and numerous iterations of elder leadership were with Moses during his leadership in the desert. However, Moses still fell victim to leadership fatigue. The only combination that seemed to work for Moses was closeness/turning to God, carefully obeying the commands of God, and delegation/teamwork. The desert is an excellent metaphor for organizational leadership. Although John Maxwell’s proverb about the leader with no followers as being “just a person out for a walk” may be true, leadership can be a lonely space at times. Or, as another axiom suggests, “Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.” For Moses, his greatest failure caused him to miss out on the success of leading the Israelites into the Promised Land. Moses got to see the Promised Land from afar, but he did not get to enter it (Deut. 34:5). Yet, even though Moses failed, no one would dare call him a failure. Moses was a humble leader who did not seek out his position as the leader of Israel nor did he crave popularity from his followers. According to the Hebrew Scriptures: 10 And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, 11 none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, 12 and for all the mighty power and all the great deeds of terror that Moses did in the sight of all Israel. (Deut. 34:10–12)

36 

C. A. SERRANO

Even in harsh environments, leaders can stay true to sound ethical principles and a moral compass that will lead the organization through the desert and into greener pastures.

References Adams, C.  J., Hough, H., Proeschold-bell, R., Yao, J., & Kolkin, M. (2017). Clergy burnout: A comparison study with other helping professions. Pastoral Psychology, 66(2), 147–175. Andrade, L., Plowman, D. A., & Duchon, D. (2008). Getting past conflict resolution: A complexity view of conflict. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 1, 23–28. Cox, T., Tisserand, M., & Tariz, T. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout: Questions and directions. Work & Stress, 19(3), 187–191. Crowther, S. (2018). Biblical servant leadership: An exploration of leadership for the contemporary context. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US. Gillette, J., & McCollom, M. (Eds.). (1995). Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Gourguechon, P. (2018). Entrepreneurs and suicide risk: A new perspective on entrapment provides hope. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/prudygourguechon/ 2018/08/23/entrepreneurs-and-suicide-a-new-perspective-on-entrapmentgives-hope/#3cb4efc95385 Gümüsay, A.  A. (2018). Embracing religions in moral theories of leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(3), 1–38. Helfgot, N. (1993). “And Moses struck the rock”: Numbers 20 and the leadership of Moses. Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, 27(3), 51–58. Herskovitz, P. J., & Klein, E. E. (1999). The biblical story of Moses: Lessons in leadership for business. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(3–4), 84–95. Olson, D. T. (2004). Power and leadership: Moses and the manna story. Princeton Seminary Bulletin, 25(2), 316–331. Rae, S.  B. (2009). Moral choices: An introduction to ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic. Wolak, A. (2016). Religion and contemporary management: Moses as a model for effective leadership. London, UK/New York, NY: Anthem Press.

CHAPTER 4

When the Only Easy Day Was Yesterday: Joshua, the General

How Did Joshua End Up Leading in the First Place? I had the privilege of serving in the US Army for a little over five years. During my time in service, I got to see and experience some fantastic and yes horrible things. Still, I look back on my time in the Army with fondness because I know that it was more of a proving ground for life than a simple vocation or way to pay for college. The training process in the Army is designed to equip soldiers for the harsh realities of life in combat. Since most of the jobs in the Army mirror civilian vocations (food service, transportation, clerical, information technology, etc.), Army Basic Combat Training is not designed to weed out as much as it is intended to condition civilians for military life. However, what is true for the regular Army is not true for the Army Special Operations Forces (SOF). The tan berets of the US Army Rangers, the maroon berets of the US Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR), and the green berets of the US Army’s Special Forces are symbols of distinction worn only by those who have endured some of the most stringent selection and training processes on earth. They also symbolize that the individual wearing them are the highest caliber of leader that the military has on offer. Special operations are military operations that take place in hostile or politically closed environments where the use of conventional forces is not practical or beneficial. These operations are usually covert and are a blend of traditional and unconventional operational techniques (JTP 3-05, © The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2_4

37

38 

C. A. SERRANO

2014). SOF are designed to move quickly and covertly over long distances to achieve their stated objectives. In some instances, SOF operate overtly. However, speed, accuracy, and high risk are usually involved in their missions. SOF are highly trained in a variety of military specialties and skilled in cross-cultural communication. These warriors undergo an intense selection and assessment process because their purpose is so complex, and their role in the bigger picture of military operations is so critical that only the grittiest of individuals can do the job. Special operators have much in common with the twenty-first-century high-capacity organizational leader. Both function in fluid contexts, and both require resilience. SOF also have much in common with biblical leadership. The selection and assessment process for SOF resembles some of how Joshua became the leader of Israel. The US Navy SEALS, one of America’s most elite SOF units, has a saying when it comes to their training and way of life: The only easy day was yesterday. That saying has applicability concerning the Israelites in the Exodus and their leaders. In ancient Israel, the earliest account of anything that could resemble a special operation took place less than two years after the crossing of the Red Sea. In that story, we find one leader who rose above the rest. However, his leadership did not start on the battlefield behind enemy lines. His leadership began in the realm of followership. Leadership cannot be fully understood apart from followership (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). Joshua’s leadership came from his willingness to follow God, follow Moses, and serve with excellence regardless of the difficult realities of his external circumstances. The first mention of Joshua involves him being tasked with preparing warriors for the impending attack by Amalek (Ex. 17:9). The Bible is silent as to Joshua’s upbringing and the life of his parents and extended family. However, due to the timing of the battle of Amalek in comparison to the rest of the wilderness journey, it is safe to assume that Joshua was likely born a slave in Egypt. He had experienced the harshness of Egyptian slavery and the miracles of the Exodus. Even though Israel had no formal Army while in captivity, Moses saw something in Joshua that caused him to be singled out as the one to not only prepare the Israelites for their first battle as a nation but also lead that Army in victory (Ex. 17:9). Moreover, God instructed Moses to write a memorial for the battle, and he told Moses to read the memorial for Joshua (Ex. 17:14). One could argue that Joshua probably had a few traits that predisposed him for leadership. Choosing capable warriors would have involved some basic

4  WHEN THE ONLY EASY DAY WAS YESTERDAY: JOSHUA, THE GENERAL 

39

understanding of human resource management, and leading a battle would have required strategic insight and basic leadership skills. However, Joshua’s story is full of examples of how leadership development is a necessary part of a healthy organizational life and further proof that leaders are not born; they are developed over time. For example, the second mention of Joshua, the son of Nun, is found in Exodus 33. Before the construction of the Tabernacle of the Wilderness, Moses met with God in a temporary tent that was placed far outside of the larger encampment of the Israelite people: 7 Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp. 8 Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise up, and each would stand at his tent door, and watch Moses until he had gone into the tent. 9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the Lord[a] would speak with Moses. 10 And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, each at his tent door. 11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent. (Ex. 33:7–11)

Review Chap. 3 with an eye for Moses’ interactions with God and then imagine being an up-and-coming leader who had a front-row seat to most of what Moses went through. Joshua’s early development came at the feet of Israel’s greatest leader. Joshua learned the valuable skills of turning to God, following God’s instructions, and leaning on the support of others from the intimate time he spent observing Moses’ rhythm of life. He also lived through the ramifications of what happens when one fails to obey God or tries to lead a large organization without a support system of other leaders. Perhaps this was an essential part of the selection and assessment phase of Joshua’s leadership. US special operations training not only involves a grueling initial selection and assessment process but also typically culminates in a training exercise designed to synergistically test all that the special operations candidate has learned during the individualized training portion of their journey toward operator status. Lawyers take a bar exam, Ph.D.s take comprehensive exams and write a dissertation, and special operators complete a final

40 

C. A. SERRANO

field training exercise. Joshua’s culminating exercises took place as he and 11 hand-picked Israelites were sent on a covert operation behind enemy lines to reconnoiter the Promised Land (Num. 13:1–16). Upon returning from this mission, the 12 ancient special operators gave Moses and the Israelites a report about the land. Of the 12 sent out, 10 came back with a fear-inducing report of how it would be impossible for Israel to occupy the land. This report was so negative that the Israelites once again rose in rebellion against Moses and Aaron and decided to pick new leadership and return to Egypt. However, Joshua and Caleb had a different view of their mission behind enemy lines. Their response not only demonstrated their belief in the leadership of Moses and Aaron, but it also showed that they understood the bigger mission, vision, and values of what it meant to be part of the organization known as Israel. At considerable personal risk to their lives and reputations, Joshua and Caleb stood up against the other 10 spies and all of Israel: 6 And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes 7 and said to all the congregation of the people of Israel, “The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceedingly good land. 8 If the Lord delights in us, he will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that flows with milk and honey. 9 Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not fear the people of the land, for they are bread for us. Their protection is removed from them, and the Lord is with us; do not fear them.” 10 Then all the congregation said to stone them with stones. But the glory of the Lord appeared at the tent of meeting to all the people of Israel. (Num. 14:6–10)

Thanks to this brave moment, Joshua (and Caleb) passed their leadership training phase and were given a special distinction, one that both Moses and Aaron were denied. Joshua and Caleb were the only Israelites from the first generation that crossed the Red Sea who would be allowed to enter the Promised Land, and Joshua was hand-picked by God to be Moses’ replacement (Num. 14:30, 38; 26:65; 27:12–23). God told the rebellious Israelites, “Joshua, the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter. Encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it” (Deut. 1:38). How did Joshua become a leader in the first place? One could argue that he successfully passed God’s special operations selection and assessment program.

4  WHEN THE ONLY EASY DAY WAS YESTERDAY: JOSHUA, THE GENERAL 

41

Issues of Perfectionism: The Pressure of “Following” a Great Leader Leading a large organization is a tough job. Leading a large organization through adversity and toward growth is arguably even harder. However, one thing that is tougher than leading a large organization is standing as the successor to an organization. People tend to romanticize the founder, and it can prove challenging for future leaders to find their voice and chart their course for an organization. This is the context in which Joshua’s leadership became realized. Joshua was chosen as the new leader of Israel not so much because of his prowess on the battlefield, although that certainly did help, but instead because of his willingness to trust and obey God (Fountain, 2004). This qualifying trait is like the traits that allowed Moses to stand up under pressure and overcome adversity. Deuteronomy establishes Joshua as being a second Moses in terms of leadership, but subservient to Moses in relation to the law (Goswell, 2013). Joshua faced immense pressure as the new leader simply because of who he was replacing. We know Joshua was under pressure because the text surrounding his installation as a leader is full of assurances by God and exhortation to not fear: After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord said to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, 2 “Moses my servant is dead. Now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the people of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory. 5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you. 6 Be strong and courageous, for you shall cause this people to inherit the land that I swore to their fathers to give them. 7 Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success[a] wherever you go. 8   This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. 9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.” (Jos. 1:1–9) 1

42 

C. A. SERRANO

God’s words to Joshua in this passage spark several questions regarding Joshua’s leadership. What could cause Joshua to be afraid or dismayed? One could argue that Joshua was afraid of living up to Moses’ humility and standing with God. After all, Moses spent so much time with God that “the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God” (Ex. 34:29). Moreover, studies suggest that during times of succession, those who are closest to an outgoing senior leader are impacted the most by that leader’s departure (Ballinger, Lehman, & Schoorman, 2010). Thus, Joshua’s closeness to Moses would have certainly played a role in how he handled Moses’ death and his new role as Israel’s leader. An argument can also be made that Joshua knew about the dangers that awaited the Israelites just across the Jordan River. After all, Joshua had already spied out the land. Even though he had confidence in God, he may have still battled with the natural anxiety that humans face in the buildup to war. Take one look at even the most basic biology textbook, and you will soon discover that humans are built for reproduction, not destruction. Taking a life is just as intense, intimate, and psychosocially impactful as making a life (Grossman, 2009). Thus, killing in war is one of the most counterintuitive acts known to humankind. Warfare has a powerful psychological impact on those involved. Add to that the stress of being the spiritual and political leader of a nation of people that had only been in existence for 40 years, and it becomes evident that Joshua was under immense pressure. It is no wonder that God told Moses to strengthen and encourage Joshua for the task ahead (Deut. 3:28).

Issues of Performance: Yesterday’s Victory Does Not Guarantee Tomorrow’s Success World War I (WWI) was famously regarded as the “War to end all wars.” Of course, we now know that WWI was just the beginning of modern warfare. Although the history books are full of tales of the trench warfare of WWI and the grand battles of World War II, most of those books do not discuss what happened to many of the generals and senior leaders in the early days of America’s direct involvement in WWII. Names such as George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Omar Bradley, and George Patton are synonymous with the Allied victory over the Axis powers. Yet, names such as Husband Kimmel, Walter Short, Edwin Harding, and Fredrick Martin are lost in the annals of obscurity.

4  WHEN THE ONLY EASY DAY WAS YESTERDAY: JOSHUA, THE GENERAL 

43

These men had proven themselves as leaders and in some cases proven themselves worthy in combat. Nevertheless, they were all fired by General George Marshall because he knew that yesterday’s leaders would not be enough to face the giants of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (Ricks, 2012). Joshua was most likely a witness to the plagues in Egypt and a witness to the miracles of the Exodus journey. He also had instant access to the leadership of Moses. However, none of that was enough to assure him of victory in the future. For Joshua, the leader, the only easy day was yesterday. Different situations require different types of leaders. There is a tension between autocratic and servant-leadership styles, especially in military contexts. Autocratic leadership involves keeping intentional distance between leaders and followers (Schuh, Zhang, & Tian, 2013). Autocratic leadership conflicts relationally with followers who are looking for a close relationship with their leaders. Conversely, servant leadership involves choosing to lead in view of the individual needs of the follower, which necessitates some measure of closeness between leader and follower (Greenleaf, 1991). Military leaders deal with caring for the needs of soldiers (food, finance, family, etc.), which requires the nurturing and service aspects of servant leadership (Earnhardt, 2008). Military leaders are also required to give demanding orders that do not always include group consideration or discussion. Thus, military leadership is essentially a blend between servant and autocratic leadership (Yeakey, 2002). The US Army defines leadership as “influencing people—by providing purpose, direction, and motivation, while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization” (Department of Army, 2006, pp.  1–4). Within that definition, one finds elements of transformational leadership (providing purpose), autocratic leadership (direction), and a hybrid of multiple theories (motivation). Moses’ charismatic leadership was exactly the type of leadership the Hebrew slaves needed to transition them from bondage and into a nation called Israel. Moses was an unproven leader, and God used miracles to demonstrate to Pharaoh and the Israelites that Moses was God’s chosen one. He was a shepherd who led battles from afar. In contrast, Joshua was a former slave and a military leader who had experience in direct combat but lacked experience in the miracles department. So, shortly after Joshua deployed a new round of spies into the Promised Land, God decided to use a familiar miracle once again to prove to the people that Joshua was the new God-ordained leader:

44 

C. A. SERRANO

7 The Lord said to Joshua, “Today I will begin to exalt you in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that, as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. 8 And as for you, command the priests who bear the ark of the covenant, ‘When you come to the brink of the waters of the Jordan, you shall stand still in the Jordan.’” …14 So when the people set out from their tents to pass over the Jordan with the priests bearing the ark of the covenant before the people, 15 and as soon as those bearing the ark had come as far as the Jordan, and the feet of the priests bearing the ark were dipped in the brink of the water (now the Jordan overflows all its banks throughout the time of harvest), 16 the waters coming down from above stood and rose up in a heap very far away. …17 Now the priests bearing the ark of the covenant of the Lord stood firmly on dry ground in the midst of the Jordan, and all Israel was passing over on dry ground until all the nation finished passing over the Jordan. (Jos. 3:7–8; 14–16a; 17)

After crossing another body of water by way of a miracle, Joshua then led the Israelites in three important spiritual rituals. First, Joshua oversaw the circumcision of all the males. This decision was an important step because “all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness” (Jos. 5:4). Circumcision was the oldest Hebrew ritual, and it was necessary for purposes of identifying with the family of Abraham (Gen. 17:1–14). Second, Joshua oversaw the first Passover that the Israelites celebrated in the Promised Land. This meal was symbolic not just because of its connection to the Exodus and the law, but because it symbolized the end of an era. After this meal, the manna from heaven ceased to supply the Israelites. From this point forward, they had to feed themselves from the fruit of the land (Jos. 5:12). Finally, Joshua was ready to step into his role as a military leader. In another beautiful twist of irony, God used a supernatural event to connect Joshua with the type of leader that he was to become. In the same way that God used miracles to establish Moses as a political leader, God used miracles to establish Joshua, who was already a military leader, as the political and spiritual leader of Israel. I will never forget the first time that I witnessed the might of the American military. Back when I was a junior enlisted soldier stationed in the Mojave Desert, I was often sent out into the vast training area of Fort Irwin to do reconnaissance for potential convoy routes. One afternoon, a fellow soldier and I were riding in our M998 Humvee in the middle of nowhere when an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter appeared over a distant hill. The aircraft was very close to us, and we had no idea it was there until

4  WHEN THE ONLY EASY DAY WAS YESTERDAY: JOSHUA, THE GENERAL 

45

it unmasked from behind the hill. The pilots checked us out, and then just like that, they vanished back behind a hill. At that moment, I had two sobering thoughts: . Thank God this is a training environment! 1 2. I am glad they are on our side! Just before what is arguably one of the most critical moments in the history of Israel, Joshua, too, had an encounter with a mighty military force that made him ponder what “side” he was on. According to Joshua 5:13–15, upon seeing the Commander of the Lord’s Armies, Joshua asked, “Whose side are you on.” The Commander replied, “I am on no side but the Lord’s!” Then, in a moment, very much like Moses at the burning bush, the Commander of the Lord’s Armies instructed Joshua to take off his shoes because he was standing on holy ground. I believe that this was the final pressure point of Joshua’s transition as leader of Israel. What happened next would solidify Joshua’s place and fame as Israel’s leader, but it almost cost Israel much.

Issues of People Pleasing: When Assuming the Best Almost Costs You Everything The fall of Jericho is a well-documented account of how Joshua followed Moses’ pattern of leadership to overcome the pressure of leadership as well as the obstacles that stood in the way of Israel’s advancement. If it is fair to compare Joshua’s leadership development to that of SOF, then it is also fair to acknowledge that much like SOF, Joshua used unconventional warfare to accomplish his objectives. Instead of laying siege to Jericho or using direct assault tactics to take the city, God instructed Joshua to deploy trumpet bearing priests, the Ark of the Covenant, and a military parade to overcome the city. This unconventional convoy circumnavigated the city once a day for six days in complete silence, except for the droning of the trumpets (Jos. 6:10). On the seventh day, as instructed by Joshua via God, they marched around the city 7 times, and then after a loud shout, the walls miraculously crumbled (Jos. 6:20). The details of that story are important, but it is vital to consider the internal pressure that Joshua must have felt. He was an experienced military leader, and everything that God had instructed him to do up until this point was counterintuitive to sound tactics. Yet, Joshua obeyed, and the Israelites found victory.

46 

C. A. SERRANO

There is a danger in organizational life to not only rest on the victories of the past but also to assume a “one-size-fits all” posture when it comes to strategy and tactics. Up until this point, everything that Joshua led Israel through proved successful. Joshua turned to God and carefully obeyed God’s instructions. However, not everyone in Israel cared to follow instructions. After the fall of Jericho, Joshua deployed another group of covert operators to reconnoiter their next objective: Ai. The men brought back a glowing report of how easy it would be for Israel to overcome this city and its people. So, instead of deploying the entire Army as he had done in Jericho, Joshua only sent a unit of 3000 men to attack the city. What happened next was nothing short of devastating. The men of Israel proved to be no match for the men of Ai, and Israel was forced to make a hasty retreat at the expense of several lives lost. Who or what could have caused such a drastic turn of fortune? It only took one compromised team member to ruin everything: A man named Achan. God had instructed Joshua that the Israelites were not to touch anything devoted to destruction in Jericho (Jos. 6:18–20). However, due to Achan’s disobedience, the entire nation suffered defeat at Ai, “and the hearts of the people melted and became as water” (Jos. 7:5). Up until this point, Joshua had experienced nothing but success as Israel’s new leader. However, resilience is often proven when everything starts to fall apart in the life of a leader and an organization.

Resilience Lessons from Joshua The story of the defeat at Ai and Achan’s sin is important because it is the most significant setback that Joshua faced during his time as leader of Israel. It is also important because within it, we find valuable lessons for resilience in leadership. Lesson One: Humility Is Always Healthy  Arrogance connects with the dark side of leadership (Ross, Matteson, & Exposito, 2014). The fear and shame associated with the stigma of weakness or failure cause some to cover up moments of vulnerability rather than admitting to those moments and seeking help. However, there is one concept that provides leaders with protection against the factors that lead to unhealthy: Humility. Pellegrini (2009) suggests that the first rule for handling and overcoming adversity

4  WHEN THE ONLY EASY DAY WAS YESTERDAY: JOSHUA, THE GENERAL 

47

is to “get an anchor” (p. 144). I believe humility is an essential anchor for one to have, not because it weighs down, but because it keeps one grounded. Humility is a construct that is associated with ethical leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006), servant leadership (Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015), transformational leadership (Oc, Bashshur, Daniels, Greguras, & Diefendorff, 2015), authentic leadership (Rego, Cunha, & Ace, 2018), and high emotional intelligence (Heen & Stone, 2017). Leadership experts from Collins (2001) to Kouzes and Posner (2007) all argue that humility is a critical aspect of great leadership. When everything goes wrong in an organization, healthy leaders should first take a self-reflective posture of humility as opposed to assigning blame or looking for a way to escape from the conflict. When everything went wrong for Joshua, his first move was to fall on his face in humility and seek God. One unique aspect of Joshua’s response to the loss at Ai is that he identified with some of the earlier complaints of the Israelites in his plea for understanding and help. By humbling himself, Joshua recognized that in the same way the victories did not belong to him, the losses did not necessarily belong to him either. By seeking God for answers, Joshua demonstrated the importance of appealing to a higher set of values in leadership. There is always time to address issues in poor strategy and execution. However, if values serve as a true north for the life of an organization and its leaders, then it makes sense for a leader to seek guidance from the source of those values when things do not go according to plan. Lesson Two: Bouncing Back Is a Necessary Choice  There is a famous axiom floating around in the fast-paced world of leadership that echoes Maxwell’s “Everything rises and falls on leadership.” This new axiom, while true in many ways, also puts an enormous amount of pressure on whoever sits in the seat of leadership. This popular axiom argues that “People don’t quit jobs; they quit bosses.” If leadership is synonymous with influence, then it stands to reason that anytime followers choose to go in the opposite direction of a leader’s guidance that some failure has taken place. One of the constant pressures of leadership is getting people to move in the right direction at the right time for the right reasons. When this does not ­happen, the adversity can become overwhelming for even the most seasoned leaders. Furthermore, the tension created by followers who do not follow well leaves the leader with a new batch of adversity to overcome.

48 

C. A. SERRANO

Adversity is a natural part of life and leadership. Moreover, success in leadership connects to how one handles the inevitable difficulty of the leadership context because there are only two options in times of struggle: overcome or surrender (Elkington, 2013). When the weight of leadership comes crashing down, resilient leaders make a choice stand firm, and when the time is right, stand up. Joshua collapsed in humility after learning of the defeat at Ai. Yet God’s response was not that of a loving and tender father but rather that of a firm and purpose-driven leader. When Joshua cried out to God via the pattern that Moses had modeled, God responded with a clear message of resilience: “Why have you fallen on your face?” (Jos. 7:10). God went on to remind Joshua of the moral framework for behavior during the Battle of Jericho and the values of what it meant to be part of the nation of Israel. Israel had compromised morally and ethically, and their loss at Ai was the first of what would be many wake-up calls to remind them of the importance of following God’s commands. In the face of adversity, God gave Joshua a bold command, and I think it is a helpful reminder for modern leaders too. When the weight of organizational adversity brings you to your knees, choose to “Get up!” (Jos. 7:13a). Lesson Three: Take Advantage of Second Chances  When a sailor decides to become a US Navy SEAL, they are embarking on a journey that statistically leads to failure. It is believed that the attrition rate for SEAL candidates is at least 70 percent (Harris et  al., 2007). However, what is fascinating is that most of the special operators who successfully make it through selection and training and into the Navy SEALS do not pass their training on the first attempt. Many of these physically fit sailors must try multiple times, especially in the phase known as Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training (BUD/S), to make it through to the SEAL teams. There is something about the taste of failure and a second chance that produces an elite type of warrior leader. My research on leadership fatigue has convinced me more than ever that even though all failure results in some loss, failure is not final. Except for situations where lives are lost, most of the leaders and followers involved in some failure will have another chance to succeed. They may have to take that opportunity in a different location, but the opportunity to dust oneself off and try again is still an option. In Joshua’s case, he and Israel got a second chance to take on Ai. First, Joshua had to deal with the

4  WHEN THE ONLY EASY DAY WAS YESTERDAY: JOSHUA, THE GENERAL 

49

ethical and moral compromise that caused the failure (Jos. 7:14–22). The spiritual and ethically complex nature of how God instructed Joshua to deal with the sin of Achan is beyond the scope of this book. Yet, it is important to note that resilience involves a leader making tough decisions. Choosing humility is a tough choice, getting back up is a tough choice, and of course, taking advantage of second chances is also tough. On a practical scale, the elimination of Achan, his family, and his property only further compounded the numerical hole that Israel faced while trying to take the Promised Land. Nevertheless, because Joshua made the tough decision, he was able to lead Israel back to Ai with assurance from God that they would be successful (Jos. 8). Israel went on to conquer much of the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. He led the armies of Israel into a victorious battle over 31 different kings, and he allotted portions of the land to the 12 Tribes of Israel per God’s instructions. Much of what the scripture tells us about Joshua involves war, conquest, and strategic leadership at the highest level. During his administration, the only easy day was yesterday. Joshua was “old and advanced in years” when the land finally saw a period of peace (Jos. 11:23; 13:1). Joshua’s final charge to the Israelite people involved a renewal of their covenant with God and an assurance that God would help Israel if they followed his commands. Joshua also gave Israel a bold charge regarding their future: 5 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Jos. 24:14)

Then, at 110 years of age, the resilient leader who followed in the footsteps of Israel’s first and arguably greatest leader breathed his last. According to the scriptures, “Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and had known all the work that the Lord did for Israel” (Jos. 24:31). There are no accounts of Joshua falling into temptation or sinning against God. Yet, all that we know about the human condition and the stubborn people of Israel leads me to believe that Joshua probably had his fair share of struggles. What is clear is that at the lowest point in his leadership on record (Ai), Joshua proved that it is possible to stand up under pressure and to bounce back in a way that leaves a legacy.

50 

C. A. SERRANO

References Ballinger, G. A., Lehman, D. W., & Schoorman, F. D. (2010). Leader–member exchange and turnover before and after succession events. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 25–36. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap–and others don’t (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper Business. Department of Army. (2006). Army leadership, field manual 6–22. Washington, DC: GPO. Dierendonck, D. v., & Patterson, K. (2015). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of servant leadership: An integration of previous theorizing and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 119–131. Earnhardt, M. (2008). Testing a servant leadership theory among United States military members. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(2), 14–24. Elkington, R. (2013). Adversity in pastoral leadership: Are pastors leaving the ministry in record numbers, and if so, why? Verbum Et Ecclesia, 34(1), 1–13. Fountain, A. K. (2004). An investigation into successful leadership transitions in the Old Testament. Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, 7(2), 187–204. Goswell, G. (2013). Joshua and Kingship. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 23, 29–42. Greenleaf, R.  K. (1991). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center. Grossman, D. (2009). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York, NY: Back Bay Books. Harris, R. N., Lords, A. O., Mottern, J. A., White, M. A., Jones, L. A., Fedak, G.  E., … Chen, H.  T. (2007). BUDS candidate success through RTC: First watch results (No. NPRST-AB-07-4). Millington, TN: Navy Personnel Research Studies and Technology. Heen, S., & Stone, D. (2017). Finding the coaching in criticism. In Resilience (HBR emotional intelligence series) (pp. 369–487). Boston, MA: Harvard. Joint Publication 3-05 (JTP3-05). (2014). Doctrine for Special Operations. Washington, DC: Joint Chiefs of Staff. Kouzes, J.  M., & Posner, B.  Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Oc, B., Bashshur, M. R., Daniels, M. A., Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). Leader humility in Singapore. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 68–80. Pellegrini, C. A. (2009). The Asa Yancey lecture: Swimming against the current: Building strength through adversity. The American Journal of Surgery, 197(2), 142–146. Rego, A., Cunha, M. P. e., & Ace, V. S. (2018). The perceived impact of leaders’ humility on team effectiveness: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1), 205–218.

4  WHEN THE ONLY EASY DAY WAS YESTERDAY: JOSHUA, THE GENERAL 

51

Ricks, T. E. (2012). The generals: American military command from World War II to today. New York, NY: Penguin. Ross, D. B., Matteson, R., & Exposito, J. (2014). Servant leadership to toxic leadership: Power of influence over power of control (pp. 1–37). Fischler College of Education, Faculty Presentations. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/ fse_facpres/244 Schuh, S., Zhang, X., & Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 629–640. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. Yeakey, G. (2002). Situational leadership. Military Review, 82(Jan-Feb), 72–82.

CHAPTER 5

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Samuel, Reputation, and Transition

How Did Samuel End Up Leading in the First Place? The American Wild West is known as a time of exploration, innovation, and adventure. During the late nineteenth century, tens of thousands of Americans sought and fought for the American dream in the vast expanses west of the Mississippi. However, when it came to the Wild West, much of the “nation of laws” was occupied by the outlaw. In fact, in 1888, it was estimated that only 25 percent of white persons living in what is now known as Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri were law-abiding citizens (Burton, 2008). Men like the legendary, yet often overlooked, US Marshall Bass Reeves did their best to bring order to a region where everyone seemed to enjoy doing whatever looked right in their own eyes. Bass Reeves was an African-American law enforcement official who served during the reconstruction era in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Reeves was a former slave who, although illiterate for his entire life, went on to be known as one of the most feared lawmen in history (Burton, 2008). What made Reeves stand out, other than his skin-tone, was the fact that he was passionate about law-keeping. Reeves believed that it was his duty as a leader and a lawman to stand up for justice in a land of injustice. He was a leader in an area full of people who did not want a leader, which is precisely the context of Samuel, the last Judge of Israel. After the death of Joshua, Israel lived in a type of theocracy where God was their spiritual leader, and God-appointed Judges served as © The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2_5

53

54 

C. A. SERRANO

­ seudo-­political-­military leaders. According to the scriptures, “In those p days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (Judg. 17:6). It was the “Wild West.” The time of the Judges is a textbook example of what happens in the absence of healthy leadership. In the years before Samuel’s leadership, Samson won his battles against the Philistines but lost the battle of morality (Judg. 13–16). During this time, the Tribe of Dan established their microsystem of worship (Judg. 18), and 400,000 warriors from Israel waged war against the Tribe of Benjamin and almost wiped them out (Judg. 20–21). Samuel’s birth was nothing short of a miracle. His mother, Hannah, made a vow to God that if He would bless her with a child, she would, in return, give her child to the service of Lord. Samuel was born at a time when Israel desperately needed an ethical and moral leader. There was a man named Eli who served as the priest in Shiloh, which was also the location of the Ark of the Covenant during the latter days of the Judges of Israel. Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phineas, were morally corrupt. They would frequently steal from the people’s offerings and would engage in sexual relations with the women who would serve at the tent of the meeting. The Bible says that the sons of Eli “did not know the Lord.” So, young Samuel grew up in the shadow of corruption as he learned how to work in the tent of the meeting. One night God revealed to Samuel that He had rejected the house of Eli: 19 And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground. 20 And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a prophet of the Lord.

Eli and his sons eventually died, and although the Ark did not return to Shiloh, the Israelites did regain control of their most sacred artifact. How did Samuel become a leader? His leadership started because of his mother’s vow, grew as he served the weak leader Eli, and solidified when God chose to remove Eli and install Samuel as judge of Israel.

Issues of Perfectionism: The Pressure of “Following” a Bad Leader For decades, American scholars and the general populace have ranked the former US presidents from best to worst. Some of those rankings measure internal attributes such as leadership, personality, and confidence

5  SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? SAMUEL, REPUTATION… 

55

(Pecquet & Thies, 2016). Other rankings consider output-based standards such as socioeconomics achievements, military victories, and the occurrence of scandal (Cohen, 2003; Thies, 2014). However, regardless of whether the ranking bases on hard data or a bad reputation, one former American leader is consistently at the bottom of the list thanks to scandal and perceived failure: Warren G.  Harding (Pecquet & Thies, 2016). Although they shared the same political party, Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover could not stop the trajectory that the country and the world were on in the post-Harding years. It is tough to follow a bad leader. Unlike Joshua, who dealt with the pressure of following Israel’s greatest leader, Samuel had to deal with the weight of following a weak leader. Eli, the priest, was morally, ethically, and religiously compromised, mainly due to the behavior of his sons and his inability to stop that behavior. Complicating matters, even more, is the fact that shortly after Samuel began to come into his own as a spiritual leader in Israel, the Ark of the Covenant fell into the hands of the Philistine Army. The Ark represented the presence of God for the Israelites, and its capture expedited the death of Hophni and Phineas in battle, and Eli, who fell and broke his neck when he found out the Ark was stolen (1 Sam. 4:5–18). Thus, Samuel faced adversity from the outset of his time in leadership because of the military threat from the Philistines, the loss of the Ark of the Covenant, and the compromised priesthood at Shiloh. However, like Moses, Samuel turned to the Lord for help in the face of adversity and modeled humility for the people by leading the Israelites to return to the instructions of God: And Samuel said to all the house of Israel, “If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you and direct your heart to the Lord and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.” 4 So the people of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtaroth, and they served the Lord only. 5 Then Samuel said, “Gather all Israel at Mizpah, and I will pray to the Lord for you.” (1 Sam. 7:3–5) 3

Because of his identifying their real problem (idol worship and disobedience) and providing them with clear action steps (repent and return to God), the Israelites consistently overcame the Philistines during the span of Samuel’s leadership (1 Sam. 7:13).

56 

C. A. SERRANO

Issues of Performance: Moving Beyond the Status Quo Israel had a habit of doing whatever was right in their own eyes until God humbled them through an outside force, which resulted in a longstanding cycle of disobedience/rebellion, judgment, repentance, and limited stability. This cycle summarizes the Book of Judges and the culture in which Samuel entered the world of leadership. The scriptures do not provide a large amount of detail into Samuel’s tenure as leader of Israel. However, the text does reveal that Samuel was innovative in his approach to leadership and highly respected by the people (1 Sam 7:15–17). Samuel’s leadership marked the end of an era that began with Joshua and lasted through the time of the Judges. Thus, in many ways, Samuel’s leadership is a book-­ end with Moses’ leadership. For example, both Moses and Samuel were known for their humility in prayer, they both appointed successors from outside of their families, they both dealt with rebellion, and Samuel fulfilled Moses’ prophecy that the Israelites would one day demand a king (Minkoff, 2002). Samuel’s story is unique in that he is one of the few prominent Bible characters who served the Lord for his entire life (Getz, 1997). For example, Samuel grew up in the house of the Lord. Samuel served under the tutelage of the priest Eli and his corrupt sons. Yet despite the evil and hypocrisy that Samuel witnessed in Shiloh, he never wavered in his faithfulness to the Lord (Getz, 1997). Not to say that Samuel was perfect. Like Moses, Samuel made an error in judgment when he presumptuously acted on God’s behalf (1 Samuel 4:1–3). However, Samuel did not deliberately set out to deceive Israel, nor did he act out in anger like Moses did (Numbers 20:10–13). At this stage of Samuel’s life, he was a mature leader used to deal with the always fickle Israelites. When Samuel was between 65 and 70 years old, he experienced the first two of three significant disappointments (Getz, 1997). First, his sons chose to pervert justice and use their positions as judges to exploit the people (1 Samuel 8:1). Second, the people of Israel rejected God by demanding a king like all the other nations that surrounded them (1 Samuel 8:4–9). The third major disappointment for Samuel happened after Saul rebelled against God’s instructions and forfeited his place as king of Israel (1 Sam. 13:8–15). Yet, despite all of this, Samuel kept his heart pure and maintained a posture of humility toward the people. Saul was a man of God for his entire life, and that reputation helped him o ­ vercome the rejection of the Israelites and lead Israel into their new political reality.

5  SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? SAMUEL, REPUTATION… 

57

Issues of People Pleasing: Reputation and Leadership Before addressing the key passage in Samuel’s transition, it is essential to examine some of the research relating to the juxtaposition of reputation and leadership. According to Blass and Ferris (2007), reputation is a critical construct in organizational leadership because of its importance for essential outcomes of work. Organizational culture revolves around the perceived attitudes of top-leadership (Sabir, Sohail, & Kahn, 2011). Research shows that when leaders have a reputation of not caring for or empowering up-and-coming leaders within an organization, organizational productivity and morale suffer (Sabir et al., 2011). Members of an organization depend on their leaders to offer wise counsel, to initiate positive change, and to navigate crises with integrity and innovation (Blass & Ferris, 2007). Thus, a leader’s reputation involves both the individual and the collective (Klenke, 2007). For example, the military develops all its leaders from within. Soldiers who desire to move up through the ranks must successfully fulfill the requirements of their career management field while maintaining proficiency in their warrior tasks. However, soldiers also depend on peer and superior evaluation for promotion. The journey from Lieutenant to General is preceded by one factor that can make or break a military career: reputation (Blass & Ferris, 2007). The downside of this system is that one can become so enthralled with their reputation that they focus more on the politics of maintaining a good name than the morality of a good reputation (Blass & Ferris, 2007). Klenke (2007) argues that authentic leaders build their reputations on trustworthiness, and relational self-awareness, which in turn produces more authentic leaders. A good reputation both attracts and produces new leaders. However, not everyone agrees that a good reputation is something that a leader should develop. Rodin (2002) believes that a Christian leader should desire to become a person of “no reputation” (p. 106). A leader of no reputation is not concerned with the typical trappings of leadership, such as power, prestige, prominence, and politics (Rodin, 2002). This does not mean that a leader should not care about their reputation. On the contrary, it means that a leader should care more about developing the Christ-like attitudes that serve as the foundation for a good reputation. Saint Benedict of Nursia is a perfect example of how Christ-­ ­ centered reputation both attracts and produces new leaders. Benedict fled Rome for Subacio because of his aversion to the political self-centeredness of Roman leadership (Bekker, 2009). His reputation as a

58 

C. A. SERRANO

godly and humble servant not only attracted many followers; it also served as a pillar for the entire monastic order that bore his name (Raverty, 2006). Benedict was a man of God who took care of his reputation by living his life with complete abandonment to the will and purposes of God (Bekker, 2009; Rodin, 2002). Benedict resembles the Prophet Samuel, a man who provides one of the greatest examples of a godly reputation in all of Scripture and who demonstrated the ability to stand up under pressure. Character, integrity, knowledge, and an overall strong ethic are all traits that make up a successful leader. “Reputation” is a term that encapsulates these traits. Proverbs 22:1 says, “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is better than silver or gold.” These traits are proven to have a positive impact on both leaders and their followers. 1 Samuel 9:1–10 gives just a small example of how Samuel’s reputation not only played a vital role in changing the trajectory of a wealthy man’s son, it also impacted the future of an entire nation and served as the bridge between the people demanding a king and Samuel, evidently following God’s commands: But he said to him, “Behold, there is a man of God in this city, and he is a man who is held in honor; all that he says comes true. So now let us go there. Perhaps he can tell us the way we should go.”

This passage introduces us to Saul of Kish. Saul eventually becomes the first King of Israel and plays a critical role in the development of another future king, who we will discuss in the next chapter. Saul’s father, Kish, was a wealthy man with a dilemma (1 Samuel 9:1–3). One of Kish’s donkeys wandered off, and Saul found himself tasked with retrieving the beast (1 Samuel 9:4). It is important to note that according to the text, there was not one man in all of Israel that had the looks and stature of Saul (1 Samuel 9:2). Saul looked the part of a great leader. The Hebrew adjective used in verse 2 to describe Saul (tob) translates, “there was none better than he” (Gaebelein, 1990). One could argue that searching for a donkey was a task “beneath” someone like Saul. Nevertheless, the search for this donkey would eventually change Saul’s life forever. Saul and his servant searched for the donkey throughout Benjamin and the hill country of Ephraim to no avail (1 Samuel 9:4). At this point in the journey, Saul was ready to call it quits. The text says that Saul wanted to give up the search because he did not want to worry Kush (1 Samuel 9:5). However, hindsight reveals that whenever Saul found himself in a difficult

5  SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? SAMUEL, REPUTATION… 

59

situation, he always defaulted to self-preservation and “saving face” (1 Samuel 12:24–46; 13:8–15; 15:10–26; 17:31–39). It seems as if Saul wanted to give up the search because he no longer wanted to waste time on the task. However, when Saul is anointed as king, he displays a flash of humility that makes the former explanation the more likely reason for Saul’s wanting to give up the search (1 Samuel 9:21; Jacobs, 2008). It is at this critical juncture that the reputation of one man changes history. Rather than submit to Saul’s desire to return home, Saul’s servant informs Saul, “there is a man of God in the city” (1 Samuel 9:5). This man of God is none other than the last Judge of Israel, the Prophet Samuel. The term, “man of God,” was synonymous with prophet or seer in the Ancient Near East. The term implies that Samuel was a virtuous and highly respected man comparable to Moses, Elijah, and Elisha (Gaebelein, 1990). The same word was eventually used about King David (1 Samuel 22:14). The fact that Saul was not aware of Samuel could have been a matter of location. By this point in Samuel’s life, he limited his travels to a circuit consisting of Ramah, Bethel, Mizpah, Gilgal, and the unknown town known only as this city (Getz, 1997; 1 Samuel 9:6). However, Ramah (Samuel’s hometown) was in Benjamin. Therefore, it is unlikely that Saul was unaware of who Samuel was because of a location difference. Regardless of Saul’s ignorance, what is clear is the fact that Saul’s servant not only knew of Samuel’s reputation, he also had faith in the man of God. The servant uses two qualifiers to emphasize Samuel as a “man of God,” both of which give insight into Samuel’s reputation.

Held in High Honor: All That He Says Comes True Samuel was not only a man of God, but he was also held in honor (1 Samuel 9:6). The Hebrew word translated honor (kabed) implies a certain weightiness. The word can be found over 100 times in the Old Testament and usually refers to glory, honor, or something heavy (Kohlenberger & Mounce, 2012). It is safe to say that Samuel’s reputation was that of an honorable yet spiritually heavy man. His words, character, and reputation held weight throughout the nation from Dan to Beersheba (1 Samuel 3:20; Jacobs, 2008). Without a doubt, honesty and integrity are both synonymous with a good reputation. Samuel had a reputation for being true to his word. The Hebrew word for true (bow) in this text means to come to pass and implies a sense of certainty that whatever Samuel spoke would apply (Kohlenberger

60 

C. A. SERRANO

& Mounce, 2012). Years later, during his farewell address, the people of Israel confirmed the strength of Samuel’s integrity as a leader: 2 And now, behold, the king walks before you, and I am old and gray; and behold, my sons are with you. I have walked before you from my youth until this day. 3 Here I am; testify against me before the Lord and before his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? Testify against me[a]and I will restore it to you.” 4 They said, “You have not defrauded us or oppressed us or taken anything from any man’s hand.” 5 And he said to them, “The Lord is witness against you, and his anointed is witness this day, that you have not found anything in my hand.” And they said, “He is witness.” (1 Sam. 12:2–5)

Samuel was not only a man of God; He was a man of his word and a man of God’s word. At every stage of Samuel’s life and leadership, his reputation remained a central component of his effectiveness as a leader, and it enabled him to grow even in the shadow of a poor leader, stand up under the pressures of leadership, and bounce back from the sting of rejection.

Resilience Lessons from Samuel Samuel had an excellent reputation and a track record of effective leadership. Yet that was not enough to stop the Israelites from demanding a new king to be like all the other nations. This critical decision ushered in a new era of leadership for the Israelites and set them on a course that would ultimately lead to their collapse as a nation. He warned them of what having a king would mean, yet the people insisted. It is at this point that many leaders would have thrown in the towel and walked away. Imagine living your entire life serving an organization faithfully only to be rejected by those whom you had served. Imagine being told that your age is now a liability for effectiveness. Imagine being blamed for the transgressions of your sons. This pain is exactly the type of stress Samuel went through. According to the text, Samuel felt the sting of rejection: Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah5 and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” 6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the 4

5  SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? SAMUEL, REPUTATION… 

61

voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. (1 Sam. 8:4–7)

The sting of rejection is not just a metaphor for the type of pain one feels when being shunned, criticized, or rejected. Research suggests that social pain is like physical pain at the neurocognitive level (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). The rejection that Samuel felt was just as painful as a physical blow. Leadership is hard and traumatic. Yet, Samuel did not cave into the crushing weight of rejection. Instead, he kept a posture of humility, obeyed God, and kept his eyes open for the future king of Israel. There are several lessons we learn from Samuel’s leadership that relate to resilience. Lesson One: Honesty Matters  Spiritual leadership consists of the following universal values: trust/loyalty, forgiveness/acceptance/gratitude, integrity, honesty, courage, humility, kindness, empathy/compassion, patience/ meekness/endurance, excellence, and fun (Fry, Matherly, Whittington, & Winston, 2007). Not only do these values connect to other ethical forms of leadership, but they also reinforce the positive values associated with overcoming leadership fatigue. Follower behavior has more to do with leader behaviors than self-management or internal motivation (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010). If a leader wants honest followers, then they should lead the way in modeling honesty always. One could argue that the dark side of leadership connects to inconsistencies between what the leader desires from followers (honesty, connection, ethical behavior) and what the leader practices (Thoroughgood, Hunter, & Sawyer, 2011). The high-profile moral failings of CEO’s, General Officers in the military, and church leaders have done considerable damage to the level of trust the next generation is willing to give leaders. Honesty in leadership offers a practical way to rebuild said trust. Samuel’s reputation as a man of truth helped connect him with the future king of Israel, and it allowed him to deliver tough truths in future times of adversity. For example, several years into Saul’s reign, Saul rebels against God, and Samuel must deliver the tough news that God had rejected Saul as king. Resilient leaders are honest, not only in their recognition of tough times but in how they navigate those tough times. More “Samuel” leaders are needed.

62 

C. A. SERRANO

Lesson Two: Someone Is Watching Christian leadership is not about position, creative ability, or the ability to manage people (Maxwell, 2007). Christian leadership is all about influencing followers to grow in Christ while living on mission (Rodin, 2002). A bad reputation strips a leader of the leverage necessary to influence the followers who are watching a leader’s every move. Samuel not only had the eyes of Israel on him, but he also knew that God was watching him. It seems that Samuel’s integrity during the leadership of Eli, his faithfulness to grow as a leader, his rejection of his son’s disobedience, and his humility in the face of rejection all solidified his reputation as a man of God. Leadership transcends style and structure. Since reputation impacts leadership development, more needs to be done to ensure that leaders-in-training spend more time learning how to self-­lead (character, integrity, honor, etc.) than they do leading others (Maxwell, 2005). Leadership wisdom develops through reflection (Wei & Yip, 2008). Therefore, resilient leaders must wrestle with the question, Am I being sought out or avoided because of my reputation (Serrano, 2013)? Samuel’s reputation and resilience were powerful enough to change history. It is easy to quit when times get tough. However, the resilient leader stands up under pressure because future leaders are watching and, in many ways, modeling their behavior off the resilient leaders. By standing up to the stress of rejection, Samuel showed future leaders that it is possible to maintain dignity, effectiveness, and a good name in times of adversity. Although Israel turned away from God’s leadership, Samuel never abdicated his responsibility to lead Israel spiritually: 23 Moreover, as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you, and I will instruct you in the good and the right way. 24 Only fear the Lord and serve him faithfully with all your heart. For consider what great things he has done for you. 25 But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king. (1 Sam. 12:23–25)

Even in the aftermath of perceived rejection, Samuel still considered the needs of the Israelites more highly than his own. It is no wonder that centuries later, a revolutionary Pharisee turned Christ-follower would echo the sentiments of Samuel’s leadership (Phil. 2:3). Lesson Three: Someone Is Waiting Once upon a time, I got thoroughly trounced by a youngster while training Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. It was embarrassing.

5  SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? SAMUEL, REPUTATION… 

63

He was as strong as an ox. I assumed by his age that he had little experience. His strength and technique said something different! It was a 5-minute lesson in humility that I will never forget. Afterward, as he lay exhausted on the ground, I jumped up, smiled, and said, “Thanks for the great training!” Well, that is what I spoke with my mouth. My heart and pride said something else! This experience made me think of what I see happening between generations of leaders as it relates to resilience and transition. Some young leaders are full of strength and fresh ideas. They want to prove that they are smart, capable, and valuable. The problem is, every now and stubborn older leaders are often so busy trying to maintain control that they never give the younger leaders a chance. They micromanage. They dominate conversations. They ignore ideas. What is worse is that when the dust settles, the younger leaders either walk away because they are exhausted, or they quit altogether. Meanwhile, the older leader wakes up with the proverbial sore muscles and headache associated with leadership fatigue. No one wins that way. If the older leaders would tap out when the time is right, they could live to fight another day. What if older leaders viewed a win as letting the younger leader feel like a champ? What if the older leaders realize that tapping out does not necessarily mean a loss if it teaches a lesson. After all, in life and leadership: If you do not lose, you can only win. According to Rodin (2002), “Before God can do a great work in an organization, that great work must be done in the heart of the leaders” (p. 112). Samuel had allowed God to form him into a man with a good reputation. Samuel learned the hard lessons of humility, and those lessons helped him transition Israel into a new form of government. Samuel could have tried to resist the call for a king, but the reality is that his resistance would have only hurt Israel in the long run. Samuel had a choice to make: keep fighting or tap-out. Even though the rejection hurt, the truth was that Samuel was indeed old, and he did not have worthy heirs of whom to hand over his leadership. Thus, resilient leaders understand when it is time to step aside and allow new leadership to take over. By stepping aside and trusting God’s processes, Samuel ensured that the right leader would step up and lead Israel. The next generation of leaders is out there. Some are waiting for a leader to give them a healthy example to follow Others, like Saul, are wandering in search of something. They are waiting for a leader with an excellent name to rise and lead them into their God-given leadership potential.

64 

C. A. SERRANO

References Bekker, C. J. (2009). Leading with the head bowed down: Lessons in leadership humility from the rule of St. Benedict of Nursia. Inner Resources for Leaders, 1(3), 2. Blass, F. R., & Ferris, G. R. (2007). Leader reputation: The role of mentoring, political skill, contextual learning, and adaptation. Human Resource Management, 46(1), 5–19. Burton, A. T. (2008). Black gun, silver star: The life and legend of frontier marshal Bass Reeves. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543–562. Cohen, J. E. (2003). The polls: Presidential greatness as seen in the mass public: An extension and application of the Simonton model. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 913–924. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. Fry, L. W., Matherly, L. L., Whittington, J. L., & Winston, B. E. (2007). Spiritual leadership as an integrating paradigm for servant leadership. Integrating spirituality and organizational leadership (pp. 70–82). Macmillan India Ltd. Gaebelein, F. (1990). The expositor’s Bible commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Getz, G. (1997). Samuel: A lifetime serving God. Nashville, TN: B&H. Jacobs, J. (2008). The role of the secondary characters in the story of the anointing of Saul (I Samuel ix–x). Vetus Testamentum, 58(4–5), 495–509. Klenke, K. (2007). Authentic leadership: A self. Leader, and spiritual identity perspective. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 68–97. Maxwell, J. C. (2005). The 360 degree leader: Developing your influence from anywhere in the organization. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Maxwell, J. C. (2007). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership: The law of influence. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Minkoff, H. (2002). Moses and Samuel: Israel’s era of charismatic leadership. Jewish Bible Quarterly, 30(4), 257–261. Pecquet, G. M., & Thies, C. F. (2016). Reputation overrides record: How warren G. Harding mistakenly became the “worst” president of the United States. The Independent Review, 21(1), 29–45. Raverty, A. (2006). Are we monks, or are we men? The monastic masculine gender model according to the rule of Benedict. Journal of Men’s Studies, 14(3), 269–291. Rodin, R. (2002). Becoming a leader of no reputation. Journal of Religious Leadership, 1(2), 105–119.

5  SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? SAMUEL, REPUTATION… 

65

Sabir, M., Sohail, A., & Khan, M. (2011). Impact of leadership style on organization commitment: In a mediating role of employee value. Journal of Economics & Behavioral Studies, 3(2), 145–152. Serrano, C. (2013, June). God/Man: Man-up. Sermon presented at GraceLife Church, Clarksville, TN. Thies, C. F. (2014). Ranking the presidents: Scholars versus the people. Academic Questions, 27(1), 79–93. Thoroughgood, C., Hunter, S., & Sawyer, K. (2011). Bad apples, bad barrels, and broken followers? An empirical examination of contextual influences on follower perceptions and reactions to aversive leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 647–672. Wei, R., & Yip, J. (2008). In focus/leadership wisdom  – Some sage advice for leaders. Leadership in Action, 28(4), 18–22.

CHAPTER 6

Power, Wealth, and Morality: A Tale of Two Davids

How Did David End Up Leading in the First Place? Did you ever watch the Discovery Channel TV show Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe? If you did not, the show essentially documented one guy as he traveled the nation, exploring the rough, dangerous, and dirty jobs that serve as the backbone of our society. You know, the work that we all benefit from but rarely want to do ourselves. On the show, host Mike Rowe would spend the day cleaning out sewage tanks, paving parking lots, digging ditches, picking potatoes, or demolishing houses to showcase just how hard and messy some of these jobs are. I loved that show for many reasons. Besides the fact that Mike Rowe has one of the greatest voices in television history, the show made me appreciate the hard work of leadership and the sacrifice that goes into success. Multimedia expert Gary Vaynerchuk often talks about the importance of clouds and dirt. The clouds are where we dream big, and the dirt is where the real day-to-day grind takes place. Simply put, there is no winning without getting smelly and sweaty. No genuine leader is exempt from dirty jobs. Being a shepherd in ancient Israel was a dirty job! Not so much because of the hard work, but because of the source of the smell: the sheep! In the Ancient Near East (ANE), shepherds were often treated as outcasts. Yet, many of the sacred texts from that region use the word shepherd as a metaphor for leadership. In the ANE, the shepherd represented both the socio-­ economic realities of the day and the cultural understanding that leaders © The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2_6

67

68 

C. A. SERRANO

had a general responsibility to lead, protect, and provide for those entrusted to their care. Thus, shepherding was not (and should not) be limited to one dimension of leadership. On the contrary, the leader as a shepherd is one who can lead with vision and effectiveness without sacrificing a genuine concern for the sheep. Now before you get offended that I am referring to followers as sheep, please take a deep breath and relax. I am in no way implying that followers are not relevant. I am just trying to stress that it is impossible to have a conversation about leaders without talking about the led. Research shows that shepherding traits and qualities exist in several modern-day leadership metaphors (Leman & Pentak, 2004; McCormick & Davenport, 2003). The led want leaders who lead by example, show compassion, pay attention to detail, and always lead with integrity. The shepherd of the ANE used a variety of skill sets in harsh environments to move the flock forward. If that is not leadership, I do not know what leadership is. It is trendy to talk about servant leadership. However, in my experience, everyone wants to be a servant until someone treats them like one! Servant leaders are all about placing others first. Servant leaders endure potential suffering and hardship, even at considerable risk to personal well-being, for the sake of empowering and leading others. The responsible shepherd of the ANE developed a special relationship with the flock that was rooted in selflessness, attention to detail, and genuine concern for the well-being of the individual members of the flock. Bottom line: An effective shepherd must be close to the sheep (dirty job), and that is how scripture introduces one of the greatest leaders in history: King David of Israel. Before we get to David, it is important to discuss King Saul. After the rebellion of King Saul regarding an unlawful sacrifice, God informed Samuel the Prophet and Saul that the kingdom would be transferred to a leader “after God’s own heart” (1 Sam. 13:13–14). King Saul continued to lead Israel in title and authority, but the blessing of God was no longer with the household of Saul. Saul went on to do all the things that Kings do, things that Samuel warned the Israelite people about (1 Sam. 8:10–18). Saul waged war against the enemies of Israel and conscripted into service any man that he deemed to be strong and in fighting shape (1 Sam. 14:52). Then, Saul once again blatantly disobeyed God by failing to destroy Amalek. Saul chose compromise over conviction, and it cost him everything. What is worse is that when confronted with his sin, Saul cared more about saving face (failure framing) than repenting and doing the right

6  POWER, WEALTH, AND MORALITY: A TALE OF TWO DAVIDS 

69

thing. So, God “tore the kingdom away from Saul,” and he lost favor with the Prophet Samuel forever. The story of Samuel and Saul, one that started with so much promise, ends in tragedy: 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel. (1 Sam. 15:34–35)

According to most scholars, David was born and raised in the “little town of Bethlehem,” where, as the youngest of eight, he did the grunt work of tending to his father Jesse’s sheep. Imagine what it must have been like back then. No iPhone to pass the time. No Instagram or Snapchat to fill the mental silence of long days and nights out on the lonely pasture. That type of solitude can be crushing for some. Yet it was out in those fields that David of Israel developed many of the traits that would allow him to go from the field to the palace, and it all started with time spent around the dirty sheep. It should come as no surprise to you that sheep are not the brightest bunch in the animal kingdom. They are obsessed with eating, prone to roam, and have no problem diving headfirst into dangerous situations. Thus, David’s primary job as a shepherd was to look out for these smelly animals. Talk about a thankless job! David’s father did not even consider him worthy of special occasions. We read about this in the Hebrew scriptures in 1 Samuel 16: 10 And Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, “The Lord has not chosen these.” 11 Then Samuel said to Jesse, “Are all your sons here?” And he said, “There remains yet the youngest,[a] but behold, he is keeping the sheep.” And Samuel said to Jesse, “Send and get him, for we will not sit down till he comes here.” 12 And he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome. And the Lord said, “Arise, anoint him, for this is he.” 13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah. (1 Sam. 16:10–13)

Saul may have looked like a king, as did David’s brother, Eliab. However, leadership is not about looking the part. When Samuel thought to anoint Eliab as King, God quickly corrected him by saying, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him.

70 

C. A. SERRANO

For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). Healthy leadership is fundamentally ontological in nature, and nowhere is that more evident than in the story of how David became a leader. David had the heart of a leader.

Issues of Perfectionism: When Leadership Almost Costs You Your Life Born in 1952 to Dutch immigrant and Merchant Marine Sixtus Petraeus and Miriam Howell, David Petraeus grew up in the shadow of service: The US Military Academy at WestPoint. Between his father’s service as a US Merchant Marine and the fortress to Duty, Honor, and Country that stood only seven miles from his home, David Petraeus was surrounded by living monuments to both selfless service and the dirty job of leadership. Plus, his father was all about results. Losing was not an option. Laziness was not an option. Petraeus grew up with a drive to reach nothing less than the absolute best, and the absolute best requires service to others. Once Petraeus became a cadet at West Point, he quickly rose to the top 5 percent of his class by maintaining an intense drive to be the best. He knew that the endgame for successful West Point cadets was leadership. Thus, he gave all his energy to being the best leader he could be. Why? I cannot help but think that he wanted to be the best because he knew that people would depend on him. David Petraeus would go on to become one of the most influential commanding generals of the twenty-first century. There is a lot in common between David, the General, and David of Israel. What did God see in David, the shepherd that he did not see in his other brothers? Although the Hebrew scriptures do not give a specific answer, I think it is fair to say that David’s willingness to do the hard work—the dirty jobs—may have tipped things in his favor. Fast forward to David’s epic battle with Goliath, and we do not see a runt. Instead, we see a kid who was willing to step up and do the hard right thing. Think about it, David’s greatness connects to his willingness to get smelly by being around the sheep and by his desire to lead by example. I know a lot of people who think that leadership equals delegating the junk to subordinates. I have worked with leaders who genuinely believe that one of the perks of being “in charge” is not having to be around the smelly drama of the sheep. Those leaders do not last. Those leaders are ineffective in the long run because leadership is all about service.

6  POWER, WEALTH, AND MORALITY: A TALE OF TWO DAVIDS 

71

So, it is no wonder that David’s first big shot at leadership happened in the context of service. It is also important to note that David’s first leadership test occurred in the context and stress of combat. The story of David and Goliath, as found in 1 Samuel 17, is full of classical biblical imagery. However, buried in the narrative is the notion of David as a servant leader. Due to the distance between the reader and the text, it is often difficult to claim with 100 percent certainty that any biblical character identifies with specific modern leadership theory. However, with the employment of sound interpretive methods such as Robbins’ socio-rhetorical analysis, it is possible to make subjective qualitative arguments that connect what we now know about leadership with what the leaders of the Bible experienced and demonstrated. According to the research, we know that one of the key differences between transformational, charismatic, and servant leadership is motivation (Yukl, 2013). For example, Charismatic leaders are more than likely driven by self-motivation, whereas servant leaders are driven by a motivation that focuses on others. Moreover, servant leaders demonstrate a level of altruism, vision, and service that may not exist in other forms of leadership. When Israel faced down the Philistine army and their champion from Gath, they froze in fear not because of their track record of war with the Philistines nor because of their inexperience in battle. They froze in fear because they did not have a leader who was willing to risk his power, position, and physical comfort for the sake of his followers. As briefly mentioned in the previous chapter, King Saul cared more about failure framing and his image than he cared about doing the right thing. Israel’s first experience with a king confirmed Samael’s prophetic warnings regarding the self-interested of kings (1 Sam. 8:10–22). Everything changed when David arrived on the scene. The story of David’s legendary battle with the giant Goliath is well known even outside of religious contexts. Everyone loves a good underdog story, and the tale of a young shepherd defeating a skilled-warrior in battle forever stands as an exemplar for unlikely heroes. Yet, hidden within the narrative lies an undercurrent of selfless service that, while not as flashy as cutting off a giant’s head, stands as arguably the most crucial part of the story. Although David did have the traits of a charismatic leader, it is his service that set him up for success. Like a charismatic leader, David rose to the occasion during a time of difficulty, he employed decisive and persuasive argumentation, and he demonstrated confidence in the face of ­overwhelming odds (1 Sam. 17:26, 31–37). However, David did not enter the scene as one wishing to lead but rather, as one with a desire to

72 

C. A. SERRANO

serve. The only reason David was in the Valley of Elah on that fateful day is that he was serving his father and his brothers. After witnessing the fear of the Israelite Army, seeing the inaction by Israel’s military leaders, and hearing the insulting words of Goliath of Gath, David offered himself in the service of his God and his nation. David even referred to himself in the narrative as “your servant” (1 Sam. 17:32–36). It is important to note that David’s motives for fighting Goliath may not have been 100 percent selfless in nature. After all, he made it a point to inquire as to the reward for whoever fought and defeated the giant (1 Sam. 17:26). Still, at significant personal risk, David charged into battle, defeated the giant, and became a hero of Israel. David’s first act of leadership almost cost him his life and forever turned him into a man of war, which would have ramifications on his greatest failure as a leader.

Issues of Performance: Conformity Does Not Equal Maturity David Petraeus was shot in the chest during a training exercise and not only lived to tell the tale, but legend has it that he also dropped down and did 50 push-ups only days after surgery to show everyone that he was still fit to fight. Years later, General Petraeus suffered a severe injury to his pelvis during a skydiving mishap, and within nine months, was back to jumping out of planes (Broadwell & Loeb, 2012). Great leaders know how to overcome adversity by staying true to who they are at their core. David Petraeus was a winner at his core. Yes, leading almost cost him his life, but his perseverance helped him rise through the ranks. David, the shepherd turned warrior, also faced several near-death incidents as he patiently waited to enter into his true calling as the future King of Israel. For example, there was the time when King Saul tried to pin David to the wall with a spear (1 Sam. 19:10). Due to David’s popularity with the people and Saul’s jealousy, David ended up fleeing for his life, and he spent several years hiding in desert caves while the Israelite Army hunted him down. Yet, David never fought back against King Saul. David was a servant at heart and knew that honoring God was more important than honoring himself. Eventually, King Saul and some of his sons were killed in battle, and David was anointed as king over the Tribe of Judah at Hebron. David ruled at Hebron for seven years while his army warred with the remaining house of King Saul (2 Sam. 2:4). Finally, at age 30, David was anointed for the third time as King of Israel. David demonstrated selflessness and a character that was the opposite of King Saul for much of

6  POWER, WEALTH, AND MORALITY: A TALE OF TWO DAVIDS 

73

his journey toward the throne and for a brief period after he became king over all of Israel. This would be a perfect spot for a happily ever after. Yet, leadership is hard and traumatic. Although David found early success in leadership, he also faced a multitude of external pressures related to political and military leadership. These pressures, coupled with the internal stress associated with prolonged combat, may have caused David to slowly begin to act like all the other kings around him. Conformity is a natural part of life. Emotionally intelligent people understand that certain societal norms and behaviors allow for positive human interaction. Cultural customs also influence what is considered normal or abnormal behavior. Thus, on the one hand, it makes sense that like Saul, David built an Army, developed property, and battled enemies as per the norm for kings in the Ancient Near East. What David did during his early and middle reign is not the issue. What is at issue is how and why David behaved as he did during this period. When David conquered Moab, why did he line up the survivors, divided them into two groups, kill half, and enslave the rest (2 Sam. 8:2)? This passage reads more like the behavior of Thanos from Marvel’s Avengers than the behavior of a man after God’s own heart. The author of 2 Samuel uses a fast-paced narrative to bridge the gap between David’s inauguration as king, his ascent to regional power, and his eventual fall. Along the way, David conquers armies, destroys animals, builds strongholds, and develops an army of conscripts that became renowned for their prowess in war. Much blood is shed between 2 Samuel chapters 7 through 10. One could argue that David was following cultural norms. He conformed to the behavior of the other kings. However, David became a leader because he was not like others. Somewhere along the line, the pressures of leadership and the scars of war caused David’s moral compass to shift. Anger is one of the key symptoms of burnout, compassion fatigue, and post-traumatic stress. When a person is under a great deal of stress or dealing with unprocessed emotions, their anger may manifest in yelling, acts of violence, or irrational compulsions that are overreactions to the situation at hand. Anyone who has ever kicked a hole in the wall, or punched a door, or shouted an obscenity in a time of frustration may relate. Anger is a natural part of life. One of the best examples of David’s compromised ethic is found in the narrative of 2 Samuel 10. According to the text, David sent an envoy to encourage the Ammonites after the death of their king. The Ammonites responded by humiliating David’s men. Although it is no small thing to insult a powerful king, David’s response not only followed the erratic behavioral patterns of King Saul, it set in motion a

74 

C. A. SERRANO

series of events that would culminate in David’s greatest failure as a leader. In response to the Ammonite offense, David sent the entire army to war. This was not the first time that David responded to an insult with threats of violence (1 Sam. 25:10–22). However, in this case, there was no one to talk David out of his action. First, David sent the Israelite Army to war against the Syrian collation the Ammonites hired to fight for them. After defeating the Syrians, David took the fight to the Ammonites and besieged their fortress city of Rabbah: In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel. And they ravaged the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem. (2 Sam. 11:1)

It is important to note that the siege of Rabbah and the fight against the Ammonites and part of David’s broader campaign against the Arameans (Gabriel, 2003). On the surface, the Aramean war was a military response to failed diplomacy and an ever-increasing threat to Israel’s eastern borders (Gabriel, 2003). However, the text is clear that this war was a response to the Ammonites’ disrespectful behavior against David and his men. Thus, one year after the victories outlined in 2 Samuel 10:1–19, David deployed the full might of the Israelite to attack the capital of Ammon (Rabbah) directly. In his anger, David was not going to overlook the offense. David conformed to the behaviors of the surrounding kings with one very critical exception. This time, David stayed in Jerusalem. This decision would change the course of history.

Issues of People Pleasing: How Pleasing Yourself Is Not the Answer In the springtime, when kings go off to war, I left behind a pregnant wife and my young son and joined the famed Screaming Eagles of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on a quest to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. On March 19, 2003, Major General David Petraeus issued the following radio message: Guidons, guidons! This is Eagle 6. The 101st Airborne Division’s next Rendezvous with Destiny is North to Baghdad, Op-Ord Desert Eagle 2 is now in effect. Godspeed. Air Assault. Out!” (Broadwell & Loeb, 2012, “Lines of Operation,” para. 56)

6  POWER, WEALTH, AND MORALITY: A TALE OF TWO DAVIDS 

75

With those words, David Petraeus stepped into the history books and joined a long line of legendary combat commanders. Four months later, in July of 2003, I came face to face with General Petraeus. I was working in the Arrival/Departure Airfield Control Group (A/DACG) at Mosul airport. General Petraeus walked into our work trailer, greeted us all by name, asked us where we were from, and then shared with us how lucky we were to have one of the first air-conditioned trailer-workspaces on the base. He also broke the hard news to us that we would be in Iraq for at least 12  months. Up until that moment, we had no idea how long our time in the combat zone would last. I will never forget how General Petraeus took the time to look at each of us in the eyes as he empathetically shared with us that he, too, had not seen his family for several months. He showed excellent servant leadership and compassion that day and forever won my respect. I saw General Petraeus several more times during the deployment, and I will always cherish the honor of having served in combat under his leadership, especially given the events of August 2015. On that date, the man who would lead coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan and serve as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency pleaded guilty to charges of mishandling classified information. David Petraeus had an extramarital affair with his biographer, and the whole ordeal was played out in the mainstream media. When I heard the news, I became quite emotional. My heart broke for all who were involved. However, what pained me the most is that I had no real answer for how a great leader could fall so hard, so fast. In the springtime, when kings go off to war, King David of Israel fell hard and fast. What David did is documented in 2 Samuel 11. However, in view of the connections I saw between King David of Israel and David Petraeus, I became fascinated with answering a more profound question: Why did David stay in Jerusalem? I eventually responded to the problem in my doctoral dissertation and subsequent self-published book, Leadership Fatigue—What New Leaders Can Learn from an Old King. According to my research, a combination of burnout, post-traumatic stress, and compassion fatigue, along with a compromised moral compass, led David to make choices that were out of character. The first choice that David made because of leadership fatigue was the war against the Ammonites. The second and costlier choice that David made was to not lead his army into battle. David shifted from being a servant leader who placed others first to a self-focused leader who had little regard for the lives of others. Despite David’s knowledge of the law of God, his responsibilities as a spiritual and

76 

C. A. SERRANO

political leader of Israel, and his knowledge of who Bathsheba was, he still chose to send for her and engage in blatant immorality (2 Sam. 11:3–4). As if that was not enough, upon learning that Bathsheba was pregnant, David tried to entrap Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, the Hittite (2 Sam 11:6–13), he gave the orders that led to the unjust death of Uriah, and he showed little remorse for any of it (2 Sam. 11:14–15). David fell hard and fast because if left unchecked, leadership fatigue can take out even the most reliable leader. It is important to note that my theory does not discount the theological realities of sinfulness. However, I also believe that the research on compassion fatigue, workplace burnout, combat trauma, and post-traumatic stress all confirm that unchecked internal and external pressures impact ethical and moral decision-making on some level. Unlike Samuel and Joshua, David’s resilience story is not one of standing up under pressure but one of how to bounce back after a significant fall.

Resilience Lessons from David General David Petraeus and King David were both proven warriors on the battlefield, both were well-loved and respected, both led their organizations to new heights of success, and both were brought down by political scandal involving a woman. How does a leader bounce back from this type of failure? What lessons can we learn from their stories that may prevent future leadership failures? David’s fall is a cautionary tale against lust, lying, and living outside of one’s assignment. Yet, there are more lessons to learn from King David’s fall that may not only help future leaders bounce back; they may also help future leaders avoid the fall in the first place. Lesson One: Relationships Matter  Leadership is a 360 process that involves the leader, followers, and the environment. Even self-leadership consists of the inclusion of other people if for nothing else other than evaluative purposes. Followers contribute to the development of leadership by supporting leadership development through helpful dissent, cooperation, and sharing responsibilities at the functional level (Yukl, 2013). Since closeness is a complex, yet essential part of group dynamics, it is necessary for resilient leaders to balance healthy boundaries while simultaneously promoting practices that leave room for tough conversations (Gillette & McCollom, 1995). One could argue that the dark side of leadership connects to inconsistencies between what the leader desires from followers

6  POWER, WEALTH, AND MORALITY: A TALE OF TWO DAVIDS 

77

(honesty, connection, and ethical behavior) and what the leader practices (Thoroughgood, Hunter, & Sawyer, 2011). Based on how David responded to accountability (2 Sam 12:13), it is evident that he had no relational accountability during his spiral into unethical and immoral decision making. By isolating himself, David lost the protection that comes from accountability. Isolation is one of the key symptoms of high levels of stress or untreated trauma. Leadership is a choice and based on 2 Samuel 11, it is evident that David made things worse by choosing isolation. In fact, according to Fluker (2009), ethical and moral excellence thrive in collaborative communities of accountability. Since David responded to the tough love of the Prophet Nathan by confessing and repenting, it is safe to assume that a counselor or friend like Nathan could have served as a safety net for David had he been given a chance to catch the falling king. Instead of choosing the collaborative community of friendship accountability, David sought collaborators such as Joab to help him mask his unethical behavior. Resilient leaders should not attempt to do life alone. There is power in numbers and isolation, or moving away from others, is often a warning side of some emotional or psychological distress or burnout (Treglown, Palaiou, Zarola, & Furnham, 2016). Thus, to stand up under the weight of leadership or to bounce back from a failure in leadership, one must have or seek healthy relationships based on trust, accountability, and healthy values. Lesson Two: Failure Is Not Final  A critical part of resilience is one’s ability to bounce back. There is an old leadership axiom that states, failure is not fatal. At the risk of splitting hairs, I believe that on some levels, failure is fatal. For example, in an ethical or moral failure, one thing always dies: the reputation of the leader. A loss of trust occurs when a leader makes an unethical or immoral decision. With that loss of trust often comes a loss of a relationship. People get fired. Employees quit. Customers walk away. In each of those instances, something dies. In David’s story, someone literally died. Again, on some levels, failure is fatal. However, failure is not final. Moreover, failure framing often stems from the belief that failure is fatal and final. Thus, instead of dealing with the causes of failure or working toward reconciliation and rehabilitation, many choose to cover up or redefine failure to serve the interests of the organization. Failure does not have

78 

C. A. SERRANO

to be the last word in a leader’s narrative, no matter how far they fall. With humility, accountability, and training, it is possible to bounce back from the depths of leadership failure. For example, after his public fall from the graces of the US political, military, and intelligence communities, David Petraeus went on to serve as the Chairman of the Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company (KKR) Global Institute, where he “oversees the Institute’s thought leadership platform focused on geopolitical and macroeconomic trends” (“Team,” 2017). He has also served as a visiting professor at several universities, and on the board of directors for a variety of global organizations. He is still leading at a high level, and I believe his rebound started in 2015 when he testified before the US Senate Armed Services Committee. During his remarks, Petraeus said: Four years ago, I made a serious mistake—one that brought discredit on me and pain to those closest to me. It was a violation of the trust placed in me and a breach of the values to which I had been committed throughout my life. There is nothing I can do to undo what I did. I can only say again how sorry I am to those I let down and then strive to go forward with a greater sense of humility and purpose, and with gratitude to those who stood with me during a very difficult chapter in my life. (Petraeus, 2015)

A couple of years later, when asked about how one can overcome obstacles, he remarked, “We need to learn from our experiences and take responsibilities for our actions and drive on” (Patel, 2017). This is not a “suck it up and drive on” mentality. This is a humble posture that views failure as a means of learning. King David’s legacy is not one of a king who ruined his life and leadership over an affair. Instead, King David is known as Israel’s greatest monarch, with a legacy that permeates both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. 2 Samuel 11–12 was not the final word in the life of King David because he bounced back. Lesson Three: Get Back Up  Sportscaster extraordinaire Dan Patrick once asked former Ultimate Fighting Championship Light-heavyweight champion, Chuck Liddell, “What’s more important, being able to throw a punch or take a punch?” Chuck responded, “While they are both important, you have to be able to take a punch in order to land a knockout punch” (Pabst & Fritz, 2014). Bottom line: if you get knocked out every time you get hit, you will not make it as a fighter. I have trained in martial

6  POWER, WEALTH, AND MORALITY: A TALE OF TWO DAVIDS 

79

arts since 2007, and I think that Chuck Liddell’s principle applies to leadership. Far too many leaders believe that they will rise to the occasion in times of adversity and stress. The truth is this: Very few people rise to the occasion, but everyone falls back to their lowest level of training. Resilient leaders know that bouncing back is the result of training. It comes from making the deliberate choice that problems will occur, stress is inevitable, and there are precautions that one can take on the front side of leadership fatigue. Within the Judeo–Christian worldview, there is always room for redemption and rebirth, which always starts with a posture of humility and intentional turning toward God. The author of the Deuteronomist History (DH), of which David’s historical narrative is found, set out to present David as being a better king than Saul and even Solomon, both of whom allowed ethical compromise to direct their leadership (Campbell & O’Brien, 2000; Peterson, 2014). Thus, although 2 Samuel 11 ends in the tragic moral fall of David, the rest of David’s narrative shows that he bounced back from failure by returning to the practices and postures that had safeguarded him for so long, including his “commitment to God” (Plastow, 2016, p. 205) and a return to the values and ethics that defined much of his younger life. David’s resilience was the result of his repentance, submission to accountability, and a marked change in behavior as noted in 2 Samuel 12:26–31: Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the Ammonites and took the royal city. And Joab sent messengers to David and said, “I have fought against Rabbah; moreover, I have taken the city of waters. Now then gather the rest of the people together and encamp against the city and take it, lest I take the city, and it be called by my name.” So David gathered all the people together and went to Rabbah and fought against it and took it. And he took the crown of their king from his head. The weight of it was a talent of gold, and in it was a precious stone, and it was placed on David’s head. And he brought out the spoil of the city, a very great amount. And he brought out the people who were in it and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and iron axes and made them toil at the brick kilns. And thus he did to all the cities of the Ammonites. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem. (2 Sam 12:26–31)

Instead of staying in Jerusalem again, David chose to lead his army. Instead of staying in isolation, David rejoined the community of his mighty men in battle. Bouncing back is not always an overnight process. However,

80 

C. A. SERRANO

it starts with a strategic first step in the direction of health. David’s story shows that even though there is a cost associated with ethical and moral failure, there is also room for new opportunities, new growth, and a return to an ethical and moral true north. King David is forever known as a “Man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22). He is the second most mentioned man in the entire Bible behind Jesus of Nazareth, whose earthly lineage traces back to the house of David (Matt. 1:1–16; Luke 3:23–38). David’s authentic responses in the wake of his failure and confrontation by the Prophet Nathan are textbook examples of the power of humility and accountability in resilience (Psalm 32:5; 51:3–4). Leadership is learning, and learning involves taking an honest assessment of what is working in one’s life, what needs improvement, and what needs safeguarding. None of this happens if a leader stays down for the count. Resilient leaders get back up.

References Broadwell, P., & Loeb, V. (2012). All in: The education of General David Petraeus. London, UK: Penguin Press. Campbell, A. F., & O’Brien, M. A. (2000). Unfolding the Deuteronomistic history: Origins, upgrades, present text. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Fluker, W. E. (2009). Ethical leadership: The quest for character, civility, and community. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress. Gabriel, R.  A. (2003). The military history of ancient Israel. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Gillette, J., & McCollom, M. (Eds.). (1995). Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. KKR. (2017). Team. Retrieved from http://www.kkr.com/our-firm/leadership/ david-h-petraeus Leman, K., & Pentak, W. (2004). The way of the shepherd: 7 ancient secrets to managing productive people. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. McCormick, B., & Davenport, D. (2003). Shepherd leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pabst, P., & Fritz, T. (Producer). (2014, August 14). The Dan Patrick show. Milford, CT: Premiere Radio Networks. Patel, D. (2017). Gen. David Petraeus: Career advice from a former CIA director. Retrieved from https://deeppatel.com/gen-david-petraeus-career-advice-froma-former-cia-director/ Peterson, B. N. (2014). The authors of the Deuteronomistic history: Locating a tradition in ancient Israel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

6  POWER, WEALTH, AND MORALITY: A TALE OF TWO DAVIDS 

81

Petraeus, D. H. (2015). Testimony prepared for the senate armed services committee US policy in the Middle East. Retrieved from https://www.armedservices.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Petraeus_09-22-15.pdf Plastow, J. (2016). Breaking points: What today’s leaders can learn from King David’s failure and response. In B. E. Winston & K. Patterson (Eds.), Ethics: The Old Testament, the New Testament, and contemporary application (pp. 195–209). North Charleston, SC: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform. Thoroughgood, C., Hunter, S., & Sawyer, K. (2011). Bad apples, bad barrels, and broken followers? An empirical examination of contextual influences on follower perceptions and reactions to aversive leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 647–672. Treglown, L., Palaiou, K., Zarola, A., & Furnham, A. (2016). The dark side of resilience and burnout: A moderation-mediation model. PLoS One, 11(6), e0156279. Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

CHAPTER 7

Leading in the Upside Down: Peter the Rock

How Did Peter End Up Leading in the First Place? I served in the army with some real heroes: Brave and honorable men and women. However, I also served with some characters. I am talking about the kinds of people that we nicknamed “Can’t get right.” They never followed instructions. They were always looking for a shortcut. They often spoke first and thought second. On the surface, these types of people seemed like they would not amount to much. Yet, with a little leadership development and a lot of on-the-job-training, I witnessed firsthand the powerful metamorphosis that occurs when one gets a chance to live up to their potential. In an upside-down way, it is not uncommon to find that those who seem least qualified, when given a fair chance, often develop into high-capacity leaders. This is the case for the Apostle Peter. Peter’s original given name was Simon, which means “he has heard” or the “obedient one” (Goodrick & Kohlenberger, 1999, p. 1590). Before we jump into the action that was Peter’s life and leadership, it is important to remember that every action story has a beginning. So, who was Peter before he encountered Jesus? According to the scriptures, Peter and his brother Andrew were from a town north of Jerusalem called Capernaum in the region of Galilee. It is important to note that most of Jesus’ ministry took place in this region. The Galilee region was known for fishing and farming. Therefore, it is safe to say that Peter was a more country boy than a city slicker. Peter was a © The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2_7

83

84 

C. A. SERRANO

roughneck. I often think of Peter as the modern man at work with a full sleeve of tattoos, perhaps a wad of tobacco in his cheek, and a Marlboro Red cigarette hanging from his lips. Nothing about him screamed, “Leadership potential!” Peter was also married, and while research on his private life is scarce, it is safe to assume that based on the culture, he probably had a small family (Mark 1:29–31). Peter was a fisherman by trade. Thus, it is fair to assume that he was a strong man, both physically and mentally. Anyone who has spent any length of time doing commercial fishing knows that the job is not for the faint of heart. Peter would fit right in on an episode of Discovery Channel’s Deadliest Catch! Fishing also requires a great deal of patience. One can spend an entire day casting nets only to have them come up empty. In fact, according to the scriptures, we know that Peter experienced days where there was no harvest of fish. The irony is that for all the things Peter was known for based on his behavior as told in the Gospels, patience was not one of them. There was a time in my life when I was sure I would be a professional football player. I had given my young life to the game. In football and the team environment, I found camaraderie, purpose, and fulfillment. Then, one day, as I was walking around a college campus, I felt the internal call toward leadership, specifically, ecclesial leadership. When I said yes to the call of God, everything changed. This change is exactly what happened to the roughneck fisherman from Galilee named Simon. Once Peter said, “Yes!” to Jesus, everything changed! Peter’s entry into leadership is rooted in two acts of obedience. Luke gives us a glimpse of Peter’s first encounter with Jesus. In Luke 5:1–6, we come upon Peter hard at work as a fisherman. Research proves that among followers, there is nothing more frustrating than a micromanager (White, 2010). After working hard all day, nothing is more deflating than having a boss standing over your shoulder telling you how to do every detail of your job. Peter was fishing all day, and the day produced nothing. Just as Peter and his crew were calling it quits, a carpenter from Nazareth called out to them, “Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch” (Lk. 5:4). Peter responded much as you or I would have. He started listing the reasons for not doing what he was told: “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and haven’t caught anything” (Lk. 5:5a). However, Peter’s next statement was extraordinarily profound and still applies to those who wish to follow the principles of biblical leadership. Even though Peter

7  LEADING IN THE UPSIDE DOWN: PETER THE ROCK 

85

started with a list of reasons to not obey Jesus, he finished with a humble step of obedience. Peter replied, “But at your word I will let down the nets” (Lk. 5:5b). Peter’s second act of obedience came right on the heels of the first. Peter obeyed Jesus by casting his nets on the other side of the boat. The result of his obedience was an overwhelming catch of fish. What happens next is nothing short of incredible. At the very moment that Peter felt the most shame (before his betrayal of Jesus), and when Peter had told Jesus to go away (Luke 5:8), Jesus calls Peter to follow Him (Matt 4:20). Thus, Peter’s second act of obedience was saying, “Yes” to Jesus and then following Him. From that moment on, Peter had a new vocation: fisher of men. Three things happened to Peter when he encountered Jesus. First, he developed a new sense of self. Second, he got a new vocation. The third thing that happened was that Peter got a new identity. No longer would he be Simon (he who hears). His new name would be Cephas, which means “Rock” (John 1:42). Jesus reaffirmed this name later upon Peter’s declaration of Jesus being the Son of God (Mk 8:27–38). Shortly after Peter answered Jesus’ initial call, the scriptures document several instances of miraculous healing. One of these instances included Peter’s mother-in-law. It is easy to read these miracle stories without ever giving thought to the perspective of the former fisherman from Galilee, who was suddenly thrust into this world of ministry with Jesus. Peter was also a firsthand witness to the increased questioning by the religious leaders of the day. The Pharisees and Sadducees often wondered as to what kind of man Jesus was. The disciples often wondered the same thing. I do not doubt that these early days of ministry greatly influenced Peter’s future leadership. The most significant thing that happened to Peter after his decision to follow Jesus is that he was set apart as an apostle. The word “apostle” means “sent one.” Although the term “Apostle” is more functional than official in the Pauline literature, it did imply significant leadership responsibility in the early Church. Jesus sent out the 12 apostles to expand His ministry, and Peter was a key leader in that group. Peter was rough around the edges, yet he stood out early on among the followers of Chris. Peter went on to be part of Jesus’ inner circle of disciples and led the earliest Church through its inauguration and initial expansion. How did Peter become a leader in the first place? Peter became a leader because he obeyed Jesus and chose to walk in the path of leadership development.

86 

C. A. SERRANO

Issues of Perfectionism: Living Up to the Name Above All Names Before exploring the post-resurrection leadership of Peter, it is important to briefly examine his most well-known failure: The denial of Jesus. How did Peter end up failing so far after being such an active follower of Christ? The answer to this question is found by first breaking down one of the most potent moments in Peter’s life. Matthew 14 tells the story of the day Peter walked on water. As mentioned in Chap. 1, I believe that the entire Bible can be trusted. The historical, grammatical, and geographical evidence for the Bible’s accuracy is unparalleled in the fields of literature and religion. Thus, even if a person does not hold to the Christian faith, they can still learn valuable leadership principles from the Bible, which includes narratives of someone walking on water. Peter’s slide into failure did not happen suddenly. Instead, much like King David, Peter’s failure began one small step at a time. Up until this point in Peter’s journey, the disciples had experienced several of Jesus’ miracles. Some of them had even seen the power of Jesus work through them as they were sent out to heal and cast out demons while preaching the Kingdom. However, no one had done something as supernatural as walking on water. According to the story, Peter and the other disciples were in a boat while Jesus was on the shore praying. Jesus had just finished performing the feeding of the 5000 (Matt. 14:22–33). According to the text, it was late at night, and the weather was stormy. The disciples saw someone walking toward them and cried out, thinking it was a Ghost. Jesus yelled back to them, “Take heart; it is I.  Do not be afraid” (Matt. 14:27). Peter’s response to Jesus was closely related to his “Because you said so” statement from earlier (Luke 5:5). Peter replied to Jesus, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water” (Matt. 14:28). There are several biblical leadership principles found in this exchange. One could talk about the faith of Peter, the boldness of his request, his confidence in stepping out of the boat, or some combination. However, all those points are irrelevant if Jesus does not display His power by allowing Peter to walk on water. Peter had no supernatural ability within himself. This is an essential element of humility, which is listed as a critical value in almost every positive model of leadership. Peter knew that blessedness came from being poor in spirit and empty in a manner that made room for more growth (Winston, 2002). I believe that it is dangerous to teach that Peter’s faith alone allowed Him to walk on water.

7  LEADING IN THE UPSIDE DOWN: PETER THE ROCK 

87

On the contrary, I believe the scripture paints the picture that Jesus is the one who performed the miracle. This point is evident in by one central fact form the story: When Peter took his eyes off Jesus, he began to sink. Perhaps for a second, Peter lost sight of the source of power. Along with losing sight of the source of his power, Peter also forgot his role as a follower. Fast forward into the narrative, and after a few more miracles, teachings, a confrontation with the religious authorities, and we see Peter rebuking Jesus! How did Peter go from “get away from me Lord, I am a sinner,” to openly rebuking Jesus? I believe Peter allowed pride, and his impetuous temperament to move him away from humility. According to Matthew 16:16, Peter made a bold statement that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Upon hearing that statement, Jesus reaffirmed Peter as the rock, and Jesus declared that upon the truth of Peter’s statement, He (Jesus) would build His Church. We will address this passage in more depth later. After Peter boldly proclaimed that Jesus is the Christ, Jesus began to teach about the crucifixion and suffering that would take place in the near future. Peter, perhaps feeling encouraged by Jesus’ earlier affirmation, “took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you’” (Matt. 16:22). Jesus was not pleased. In his rebuke of Peter, he said, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matt. 16:23). Could it be that Jesus was calling Peter “Satan”? Or maybe, Jesus was rebuking Satan himself? I tend to believe the latter based on the account in Matthew 4, where Satan tried to tempt Jesus to shortcut His mission. Regardless of which view one holds, the fact is that Peter stepped out of line. Peter’s pride had him heading down a road that eventually lead him to failure. Have you ever met someone who tried to “suck-up”? No one likes the person who is always trying to get on the good side of the boss. The apostles were continually jockeying for position in Jesus’ circles. Sometimes they did this by making bold statements. Other times they did this by trying to take the initiative. Peter, still glowing from the proclamation that Jesus made about him, decided to stick out by answering another question correctly. In Matthew 18:21, Peter asked Jesus the question, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Perhaps Peter made this statement from the prideful position of “Look how righteous I am, I am willing to forgive up to 7 times!” The text is not clear as to Peter’s motives. However, what is clear is that Jesus burst Peter’s proverbial bubble by declaring, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven

88 

C. A. SERRANO

times” (Matt: 18:22). Jesus then taught Peter a great lesson on mercy by giving the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt 18:23–35). How does any of this connect with Peter’s journey to failure? Jesus was trying to teach Peter the importance of forgiveness, mercy, and humility. Jesus was giving Peter several opportunities to learn the lessons of humility before it was too late. We have the luxury of seeing the whole story. We can look and see the irony in Peter’s questions. Peter, more than anyone, would desperately need forgiveness and mercy. It is almost as if Matthew 18 was preparing Peter’s heart, or at least planting the seeds for what Peter would need after the crucifixion. However, Peter’s pride was positioning him for a great fall.

Issues of Performance: Doing What Jesus Did I played football all through middle and high school, and I was excellent. My natural talent allowed me to play at the varsity level all four years of high school. However, not all my football memories are of glory. During my junior year, I was the starting at defensive end for the Leto High School Falcons. However, I was not very good at the job. I was not built to play that position. I will never forget how horrible it felt to go from superstar to second string after an embarrassing game, where I not only missed several tackles and sack opportunities, I gave up the winning touchdown! I can look back now and say, without a doubt, pride put me in the position to fail. I thought more highly of myself then I should have, I did not receive coaching, and I thought I had everything under control. Peter was most assuredly on Jesus’ starting squad. He was considered part of Jesus’ inner circle. Based on the Gospel accounts, it is easy to say with certainty that Peter was the primary target of Jesus discipleship training. Peter was with Jesus when he performed several miracles, he witnessed Jesus raise a child from the dead even though he kicked everyone else out of the room, and Peter was present on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9:18–36). Peter was very much in first place. However, his pride slowly moved him into a different position. It is important to note that in the Jesus of Nazareth School of Leadership, the last (humble) are first and the first (proud) are always last (Matt. 20:16). I shared with you my story of being benched. Let me share Peter’s story of being benched, found in the Last Supper narratives. Although all four gospel accounts record Jesus’ final meal with his disciples, it is the Gospel of John that offers the most intimate portrait of what transpired on that fateful night. The meal that Jesus and the apostles were partaking of

7  LEADING IN THE UPSIDE DOWN: PETER THE ROCK 

89

was probably part of the Passover meal. According to the Jewish and Roman custom of seating, the places of honor were at the right and left of Jesus respectively (Noy, 1998). We know from John’s account that he reclined against Jesus during the meal (John 13:23). Based on the typical seating of the day, this put John the Beloved as most likely sitting on Jesus’ right. That means the person on Jesus left should have been the most important in the room next to Jesus. Logically that place should have gone to Peter or James. Instead, the last person that anyone would expect to sit there received the seat of honor: Judas Iscariot. The betrayer got the position of honor while Peter most likely sat in a place of lesser honor (Matt 26:23; Luke 22:7–23; John 13:18–30). Sadly, this seating arrangement did not stop Peter from boldly declaring, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death (Luke 22:33). After supper, Peter could not even stay awake with Jesus for one hour of prayer (Mk 14:43–52). Peter was supposed to be praying with and for Jesus, and instead, he was asleep. This time was important because all the miracles, all the teaching, and all for the discipleship that Peter had received led up to this moment. Peter’s true testing was about to come. After the prayer in Gethsemane, the armed mob, led by Judas, showed up to take Jesus captive. Did Peter remember Jesus teaching about his arrest, death, and resurrection? Did he remember the miracles? Did he remember the declaration the Jesus is the Son of God? No! At that moment, all the disciples scattered, and Peter attempted to stop the arrest by force only to be stopped by Jesus. What we have seen in the life of Peter up to this point is the opposite of humility. Peter was on a collision course with failure, and it finally happened shortly after Jesus was arrested. When given a chance, Peter had the best opportunity to take a stand and die with Jesus. Yet, he chose to curse, lie, and reject the very Jesus that he had earlier proclaimed as Lord. When Peter hit this rock bottom place, he wept bitterly and ran away like the rest of the disciples. Peter was considered by many to be the “right-hand man of Jesus.” Yet, his impetuousness and pride ultimately led to bitter betrayal. The good news is that failures do not have to be final.

Issues of People Pleasing: The Dark Side and the Hypocrite The natural response to failure is to either give up or give in. Yet, failure is an essential, although a complicated component of leadership development and practice (Bennis, Sample, & Asghar, 2015). Peter’s collision with pride, betrayal, and failure is not an isolated event that only existed in

90 

C. A. SERRANO

an ancient context. Thanks to the ever-increasing amount of hermeneutically sound research on biblical leadership, twenty-first-century leaders can not only learn from ancient leaders on an academic level but also connect with these leaders on a personal level. The fact that we are all humans supports the notion that like Peter, every leader has messed up in one way or another. Yet not every leader responds to these failures in the same manner. Some choose to respond to failure by working harder, which may only further exasperate the symptoms of leadership fatigue. Others react to failure by trying to get back to business as usual as quickly as possible. Although resilience is often framed by one’s ability to “return to a sense of normality,” resilience does not imply sticking one’s head in the proverbial sand or returning to an unhealthy sense of normality (Teo, Lee, & Lim, 2017, p. 136). Peter, after weeping bitterly, hid in fear of persecution with the rest of the disciples. This is not the same Peter who stood up boldly proclaiming Christ as Lord or even the same Peter who dared to cut a man’s ear off. This Peter was broken, scared, and uncertain of the future. John’s Gospel shows that sometime after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, Peter went back to fishing (Jn 21:1–14). This is not what Jesus called him to do. After witnessing the empty tomb with his own eyes, Peter still did not understand the gravity of what happened. I am sure his guilt and the weight of failure did not help his understanding. Instead of returning to the life he had lived for three years while traveling with Jesus, Peter instead returned to the same position he was in when Jesus first called him. Some people like to restore old cars. They pour hours and thousands into taking the junk and restoring it to its original state. I had a first-­ generation iMac computer that sat collecting dust in my house for years. One of them used to make a handy footstool. Eventually, I gave the old machine to an acquaintance who shared my love for all things Mac. Within a few weeks, he had dusted it off, opened it up, removed the obsolete parts, installed more memory, and installed a new smart drive and operating system. It worked better than ever (for an out of date computer)! There is something powerful about restoration, especially when it happens in the context of community. Isolation, stigma, and rejection are all connected to leadership fatigue. Isolation may increase the poor decision-­ making involved in ethical and moral failure. Stigma causes individuals to turn away from mental and emotional health support because of the fear of rejection (Shim & Rust, 2013). However, accountability, healthy relationships, and an intentional process of recovery foster resilience. It is

7  LEADING IN THE UPSIDE DOWN: PETER THE ROCK 

91

difficult to bounce back alone. Thankfully, Peter had the most excellent leader in history as a mentor and example. John 21 shows us what I refer to as the “re-calling” of Peter. There are several parallels between Peter’s first encounter with Jesus and his most significant post-resurrection encounter with Jesus (Luke 5:1–11; John 21:1–14). In both accounts, Peter is found fishing, with Jesus standing on the shore, giving instructions. Both stories involve Peter’s lack of success as a fisherman. Moreover, as with the first account, obeying Jesus paid off for the fishermen. Yet, unlike the account of Peter walking on water, this time, Peter jumped out of the boat and swam to Jesus! Upon returning to shore and while enjoying their catch, Jesus asked Peter three questions that forever changed the trajectory of his life: “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15–19). It is important to note that in the koine Greek language, different words are translated “love.” In this text, the first two times that Jesus questions Peter, he uses the word agape, which means deep and divine love. Peter responded to both of those questions with a firm, “Yes!” The final time, Jesus used a different word, phileo, when asking, “Do you love me?” The word phileo means brotherly love or friendly affection. The last statement is important because, in this, Peter was saying to Jesus that he was not like Judas, the betrayer. He was showing Jesus that he not only loved Him because He is Christ (divine love); he loved Him because he genuinely cares for him as a person (brotherly love). In each of Jesus’ responses to Peter’s affirmation, Jesus re-called Peter to his original work as an apostle and disciple. Jesus restored Peter, not with platitudes of forgiveness, but with an actual position in the organizational life of what would become the Church.

Resilience Lessons from Peter A leadership vacuum exists in twenty-first-century organizational and ecclesial leadership contexts. Struggle, suffering, and failure are often overlooked as redeemable aspects of the leadership journey (Bennis, et al., 2015). As the world grows increasingly hostile and complex, leaders need the proper tools to not only survive such tumultuous times but to also thrive in those times. Instead of running away from trouble and toward the easy and often-unethical fixes of said troubles, resilient leaders should be taught and encouraged to embrace the positive lessons of struggle and suffering, as exemplified in the life and teachings of Peter.

92 

C. A. SERRANO

Lesson One: Resilience Requires Inward Strength  The Book of Acts is the primary snapshot of early church history in the Bible. It is full of stories that trace the growth of the Church from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria and to the ends of what at that time was the known world. In ecclesial circles, some believe the modern Church should return to the principles and practices of the Church, as documented in Acts. While I do agree that there are church growth and church health principles in Acts that transcend time and space, I would also argue that the Church of Acts was much more limited in what they could do for Kingdom advancement when compared to the twenty-first-century Church. Although we have the same theological realities at work in our current models as they did (Spirit empowerment, sacred text, community, etc.), we also have robust freedom of movement and speech that they did not enjoy. We also have technology that they could not exploit. We have access to the globe at the click of a button. They had horses, sandals, and their mouths, which make the organizational expansion of the Church that much more miraculous when you think about it. Nevertheless, God still used leaders to accomplish this significant expansion, and Peter stood in front and center of it all. In Acts 1:8, Jesus promised power from the Spirit of God to His disciples. This power would help them to witness and to live out the mission of God. Before this, the disciples were timid at best and looked for Jesus to do all the work for them. They argued often, jockeyed for power, and when faced with real adversity, crumbled under pressure. That all changed when they received the internal power of the Holy Spirit. After the disciples receive the Holy Spirit’s power, everything changed in their relational dynamics and their ministerial effectiveness, especially for Peter! Peter went from reluctantly following Jesus, to boldly standing united with the other apostles. In fact, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter stood up with the 11 and preached a sermon so powerful that God used it to bring 3000 people into the kingdom (Acts 2:41)! Peter bounced back from failure because he had a new inward strength that did not originate with his personality or tendencies, but rather originated from a higher source. Peter not only spoke boldly to the crowds like Jesus, but he also did the physical work of Jesus. Acts Chapter 3:1–10 gives an illustration of Peter healing a man that was often overlooked by the surrounding religious people. Peter and John were faithful Jews even after Christ ascended to Heaven. They followed the custom of going to the Temple at the time of prayer when sacrifices and incense were offered to God. It is important to

7  LEADING IN THE UPSIDE DOWN: PETER THE ROCK 

93

note that this was a daily routine. There was a man who was put at a prominent temple gate every day. He was crippled since birth, so we do not know how long he was brought to the gate to sit. We do know it was for some time. In Acts 4:22, we read that the man was over 40 years old; so, imagine how long he sat at the gate. Think about what this man saw every day. The disciples went to the Temple every day, so surely, they saw each other. The man sat at the gate for some time so that he may have witnessed: Jesus cleansing the Temple, Jesus’ teaching, a blind man being healed, children praising Jesus, and the religious confronting Jesus. However, this beggar just blended in. Peter, by doing the work of Jesus, stops and takes the time to help an “unlovable” man. The beggar asks for money, and instead, Peter gives Him the greatest gift: Jesus. Resilient leaders do not depend on their strength to overcome adversity. Resilient leaders are aware of their limitations. Resilient leaders bounce back by drawing on positive internal sources of power and rejecting the prideful practices that often fail. Lesson Two: Struggle Is a Catalyst for Growth  Along with doing the work of Jesus via preaching and healing, Peter also experienced life-threatening persecution like Jesus. In Acts 12, we find a growing and thriving Church. Numerically, the Church grew every day. The men who at one time left Jesus alone to get beaten and arrested in a garden were now turning the world upside down, and because of that, the authorities of the day used violent force to stop the Church. James, the brother of John, was murdered. Shortly after that, Peter was arrested. Yet, Peter did not experience the same betrayal and abandonment that Jesus did. Rather, the Church of Jerusalem unified in prayer and support for Peter, and he was miraculously rescued. Peter experienced beatings and imprisonment for the name of Jesus, yet he did not waiver in living out the call of God on his life. Jesus commissioned His disciples to go into the world with His message. Yet a good bit most of his core team stayed in Jerusalem, even after the events of Acts 2. They prayed daily and lived their Jewish lives. Thus, persecution and struggle catalyzed growth. Peter had gotten his feet wet in Samaria, but he had much to learn regarding the new organizational dynamics of the Church (Acts 8:9–25). Peter had a few more lessons to learn before he could walk in the fullness of his leadership calling. He had already learned how to bounce back from pride and guilt. However, he had not yet overcome the issue of prejudice. This change happened when

94 

C. A. SERRANO

Peter had a vision of a blanket full of food that was unclean to the Jews. Through that vision, Peter’s eyes opened to the reality that the message of Jesus was and is for everyone (Acts 10:34–43). Peter had one more documented account of showing favor along racial and cultural lines, but the leadership of the Apostle Paul helped him change his ways (Acts 15:6–11). In Galatians 2:11–13, we see that Peter was not fully living out the realities of Acts 10. When Peter was around Gentiles, he acted like them. However, when Jews came around, Peter shunned the Gentiles and caused others to follow in that hypocrisy. So, Paul calls Peter out on it. The good news is that their differences found a resolution. We can make that conclusion because, in one of Peter’s letters, he referred to Paul respectfully and affectionately (2 Peter 3:15–16). After the vision in Acts 10, there is a marked transition in the historical narrative as Luke shifted the focus of his writing from the ministry and leadership of Peter toward the work of Paul. This does not mean that Peter lost his impact. On the contrary, it means that Peter had been so effective at doing the work of Jesus that others like Paul were able to step up and do greater things. Resilient leaders understand that struggle, whether physically, environmentally, or relationally, can be an excellent catalyst for growth. Lesson Three: Sacrifice Is an Essential Part of Leadership—Legacy Matters  A few years ago, I conducted a funeral for a 30-year-old school teacher. To call that moment tragic would be an understatement. However, this teacher lived her life in such a way that her legacy made preaching the funeral very easy. She was an excellent teacher, a sacrificial-servant leader, full of grace and humility, and she left a void in our community. When we leave this life, we all will leave a mark. Peter’s legacy is one that reverberates throughout the Church. Peter’s story demonstrates that it is possible to fail, bounce back, and even finish strong. Peter wrote two letters to both Gentiles and Jews scattered throughout Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (DeSilva, 2004). Both letters not only reiterated the teachings of Jesus, but they also reflected all that Peter went through while living for Jesus. In those letters, Peter teaches about humility, submission, enduring persecution, and trusting the word of God. The Petrine emphasis on suffering found in both of his letters demonstrates the creation of an alternative culture within the Diaspora/ Greco-Roman culture. Peter wrote to encourage believers to endure hardship and persecution because “the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world” (1 Peter 5:2).

7  LEADING IN THE UPSIDE DOWN: PETER THE ROCK 

95

This type of language and logic would only make sense to those within the Christian subculture. Although Peter did not call for a physical rebellion against the sociopolitical systems that were familiar to his readers, he did call for a spiritual rebellion against the pride, selfishness, and indiscipline of the day. The dominant culture of 1 Peter 5 is the Greco-Roman world with its idolatry, emperor worship, and violent persecution of any that would dare “fight the system” (Gaebelein, 1990). By default, the Church became a subculture within the dominant culture at its birth. One could argue that the main thrust of Pauline and Petrine literature was to call the Church from subculture to a counterculture (Romans 12:2; 1 Peter 2:11–12). A counterculture arises from the dominant culture or subculture by rejecting the central values of the dominant culture (Robbins, 1996). As an Apostle of Christ, Peter delivers his version of “You have heard it said, but I say” to remind the early Christians that they belonged to a “new” and “greater” Kingdom than the Roman Empire. According to Greenleaf (1991), a servant leader makes the conscious choice to lead only after they have first naturally served the follower. This means that a true servant leader will not view suffering as a time to use others as a means of self-preservation (Flaniken, 2006). Instead, a servant leader willingly places the needs of others above his or her own, even at high risk to personal well-being, for the sake of empowering the follower to also develop into a servant leader (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008). Research shows that servant leadership is a significant predictor of subordinate organizational commitment, community citizenship behavior, and in-role performance (Liden et al., 2008). A leader’s willingness to lay down the culturally assumed rights of a leader for the sake of the team positively impacts the organization. Peter’s leadership, as demonstrated in his letters, argues that as a leader willingly endures suffering (persecution, hardship, etc.), they not only model Christ-like love to the persecutors, but they also model Christ-like leadership to their followers. In return, the follower will begin to model selflessness in times of suffering. Thus, the circle of servanthood eventually allows the organization to accomplish its goals despite the actual or perceived hardship. Bureaucratic leadership focuses on rules and the bottom line (Agee, 2001). Conversely, servant leadership focuses on the follower. While suffering causes significant distress to the bureaucratic paradigm, it gives the suffering servant leader a more significant opportunity to place the needs of others first authentically. This does not mean that one should seek out trouble or hardship. On the contrary, it means that servant leaders are aware that

96 

C. A. SERRANO

difficulty is just another tool that they can use to develop their followers (Crowther, 2012). Since resilient leaders understand that struggle can be a catalyst for change, one could argue that in the context of humble, servant leadership, resilient leaders also view suffering as a means for growth. Much has been made of Jesus’ comments to Peter regarding the “rock” and “building the church.” Many have taken this to mean that Peter was the first Pope and that all apostolic succession continues through his line (Shelley, 1995). However, after Matthias replaces Judas, we do not see a pattern of apostolic succession in the scriptures (Acts 1:12–26). The scriptures are clear that the word apostle is more of a functional word than an office. There is no doubt that Peter was looked at as the leader among the early Church. Moreover, the evidence suggests that Peter was the “first or founding chief presbyter-bishop of the Church in Rome” (Sobrino, 2003, p. 421). It is also important to note that outside of 1 and 2 Peter and the Acts narrative, the greatest scriptural impact that Peter made is the Gospel of Mark. It is quite fair to call Mark “The Gospel of Peter.” Most scholars agree that John mark was a disciple of Peter’s and was the transcriber of Peter’s teachings and stories. The style of Mark’s Gospel fits the personality of Peter very well. What is even more impressive is the fact that scholars often agree that both Luke and Matthew borrowed heavily from Mark. This means that the perspective and life of Peter impacts 75 percent of the Gospels. Not bad for a man who had once betrayed Jesus and seemed like the least likely to make a difference! Legend has it that Peter was crucified upside down at the top of the Vatican Mount (Bockmuehl, 2007). Clement of Rome’s writings are the most substantial pieces of evidence that we have that Peter was martyred (1 Clement 5). Everything else is a legend. What matters in the context of our study is the life that Peter lived. If anyone could have given up, it was Peter. If anyone should have been bypassed for leadership, it should have been Peter. Yet, Peter overcame failure, grew from struggle, and leveraged suffering to lead the Church through exponential growth and into the history books. Resilient leaders bounce back.

References Agee, B. R. (2001). Servant leadership as an effective approach to leadership in the Church. Southwestern Journal of Theology, 43(3), 7–19. Bennis, W., Sample, S. B., & Asghar, R. (2015). The art and adventure of leadership: Understanding failure, resilience and success. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

7  LEADING IN THE UPSIDE DOWN: PETER THE ROCK 

97

Bockmuehl, M. (2007). Peter’s death in Rome? Back to front and upside down. Scottish Journal of Theology, 60(1), 1–23. Crowther, S. (2012). Peter on leadership: A contemporary exegetical analysis. Fayetteville, NC: Steven Crowther. DeSilva, D. A. (2004). An introduction to the new testament: Contexts, methods and ministry formation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Flaniken, F. (2006). Is the Bible relevant to servant-leadership? Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 1(1), 32–39. Gaebelein, F. (1990). The expositor’s bible commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Goodrick, E., & Kohlenberger, J. (1999). Zondervan NIV exhaustive concordance (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Greenleaf, R.  K. (1991). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177. Noy, D. (1998). The sixth hour is the mealtime for scholars: Jewish meals in the Roman world. Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World, 1, 134. Robbins, V. K. (1996). The tapestry of early Christian discourse: Rhetoric, society, and ideology. New York, NY: Routledge. Shelley, B. (1995). Church history in plain language. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic. Shim, R., & Rust, G. (2013). Primary care, behavioral health, and public health: Partners in reducing mental health stigma. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 774–776. Sobrino, O. (2003). Was peter the first bishop of Rome. New Blackfriars, 84(991), 415–421. Teo, W. L., Lee, M., & Lim, W. S. (2017). The relational activation of resilience model: How leadership activates resilience in an organizational crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(3), 136–147. White, R.  D., Jr. (2010). The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure. Public Personnel Management, 39(1), 71–76. Winston, B. E. (2002). Be a leader for God’s sake: From values to behaviors. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University, School of Leadership Studies.

CHAPTER 8

Leading Under Pressure: James and the Shadow of Jesus

How Did James End Up Leading in the First Place? History is full of powerful families who collectively changed the world, sometimes for the better, sometimes for worse, but always profoundly. In the United States, names such as Kennedy, Rockefeller, Walton, and Bush are synonymous with power, authority, and service, be it philanthropic, public, or both. Globally, being born into the House of Windsor or the House of Saud brings unfathomable wealth, honor, and scrutiny. There is something about the privilege of being born into these prestigious families that almost assures its members will be leaders in their respective fields and communities. Yet, with that privilege also comes a measure of pressure that may not exist in other families. Regardless of whether your father is the president of the United States, your grandmother is the Queen of England, or your uncle is the wealthiest man in your country, the burden of living up to the family name can smother even the strongest individual. Thanks to the voyeuristic nature of celebrity culture and the accessibility of historical narratives, it is relatively easy to get a glimpse into the lives of those who live in the shadow of a great family name. However, only one family produced the most excellent leader in history. For a moment, in the town of Nazareth in Northern Israel, the House of Joseph Son of Jacob and Mary Daughter of Heli (Eli) contained three men who would go on to change the world. Much has been written on Mary, and of course, the

© The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2_8

99

100 

C. A. SERRANO

world could not contain the volumes that have been or could be written on her son Jesus, little is known about her other children, namely James. Most scholars believe that sometime after Jesus’ was born, Joseph and Mary had several children together per the standard customs of Jewish marriage (Myllykoski, 2006). Those children include Joses, Judas (Jude), Simon, James, and unnamed sisters (Mk 6:3). Christian Comedian Michael Jr. is the first person who ever sparked my interest in exactly what went on inside of the house of Mary and Joseph. In one of his comedy bits, the comedian reflectively asks the audience to consider the pressure of growing up as “James Christ.” Did the locals expect James to perform miracles too? Did Mary expect James to live up to the same perfection that was exhibited by young Jesus? Of course, “Christ” was not their collective last name. Still, it could not have been easy for James to grow up in the shadow of Jesus, especially once Jesus began his public ministry. When Jesus began his ministry, those in his hometown used his family as part of their rationale for ignoring his authority to teach and ministry (Mk 6:3). The scriptures are silent as to James’ upbringing. However, there are a few moments during the public ministry of Jesus, where we get a glimpse of the family tension. One of those moments is in Mark 3:20–21; 31–32: Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” … And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.”

Most of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ family show a confused group of people who struggled much to understand just who Jesus was and, more importantly, what he was doing on his travels throughout Judea. They even tried to get to Jesus, but could not because of the size of the crowds (Luke 8:9–10). It is important to note that most scholars believe this to be the same one documented by Matthew (12:46–50) and Mark (3:31–35). On another occasion, Jesus’ brothers tried to get him to follow their agenda, which he ignored. According to John’s account: So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For not even his brothers believed in him. (John 7:3–5)

8  LEADING UNDER PRESSURE: JAMES AND THE SHADOW OF JESUS 

101

How did James go from being skeptical of his brother to a fully devoted follower of Jesus? Although Luke never mentions James in his Gospel account, he indirectly refers to James in Acts 1:14 as being part of those who “were devoting themselves to prayer” post-resurrection and ascension (Johnson, 2004). Even though James was not present for the crucifixion, the scriptures indicate that he saw his brother in resurrected form, and it changed the trajectory of his life (1 Cor 15:7). James is mentioned directly in the book of Acts as a key leader in the Church on multiple occasions and referred to as such in the Pauline writings as well (Gal. 1:19). The fourth-century historian Eusebius argued that many of the early Church rabbinical teachers were, in fact, descendants of Jesus’ extended family (Friedman & Friedman, 2012). James probably became an early leader because of his connection to Jesus. However, it is evident that as with all the other disciples, the resurrection of Jesus changed everything for James. How did James become a leader in the first place? He stepped out of the shadow of His brother and took up the mantle of carrying on his brother’s mission.

Issues of Perfectionism: When the Previous Boss Moves On Workplace promotions are a complicated issue. On the one hand, they symbolize advancement, financial increase, and a measure of trust inherent in the responsibility of leadership. On the other hand, promotions bring about a level of stress and pressure that is often not experienced at junior levels within an organization. Capacity is another important element of promotion. Just because someone can function well on a team does not mean that they can lead the team. For example, in the NFL, it is not a given that the most talented players will one day become coaches. The same can be true of a variety of industries. Conversely, Bill Belichick, arguably the most successful head coach in NFL history, never played a snap in the NFL. Yet his 8 Super Bowl rings (2 as a defensive coordinator) and 9 Super Bowl appearances as a head coach show that he has what it takes to lead at the highest levels. How can someone who never played professionally lead others to achieve at the highest levels? I think it has everything to do with the lessons absorbed while waiting for the promotion. I think it all connects with being near great leadership. In the case of Bill Belichick, the fact that both his father and godfather were football coaches significantly impacted his ability to

102 

C. A. SERRANO

lead. He also spent several years working as an assistant for several times and under the influence of another Hall of Fame coach, Bill Parcels. Proximity to great leadership will prepare you for the pressures of a promotion. After the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, his 12-man team (now down one man) had no idea what to do next. They had several interactions with the resurrected Jesus over 40 days, and then one day, He gave them instructions to wait in Jerusalem, and He ascended into the heavens before their very eyes (Acts 1:6–11). So, that is what His apostles and remaining disciples did, they waited: Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. (Acts 1:12–14)

Jesus’ family played a vital role in the birth of the Church. This small detail is often overlooked and understandably so. After all, the first 12 chapters of the Book of Acts focuses heavily on the leadership of Peter and John and the ministry activity of Phillip and Stephen. Yet, present at the promotion of Matthias from disciple to apostle were the brothers of Jesus (Acts 1:15–26). Present on the Day of Pentecost when the Church was born was Mary and the brothers of Jesus (Acts 2:1). Present as Peter stood up with the rest of the apostles and delivered the first sermon of the Christian Church were the brothers of Jesus (Acts 2:14–36). Among those who “devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching, they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” were Mary, Jude, and James. James was not a “player.” He did not initially believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Although he grew up knowing of His older brother, he did not grow up believing in His elder brother. However, James did witness the works of his brother. He saw the crowds, the miracles, the influence, and of course, the resurrection, and eventually, he became a believer. Yet, it was his proximity to the original apostles that more than likely shaped his leadership. He learned from Peter, James, and John of Zebedee, and the others. He saw how they were unified, even though Peter and John often took the lead in public affairs. He saw how they responded to persecution, internal conflict, and, more

8  LEADING UNDER PRESSURE: JAMES AND THE SHADOW OF JESUS 

103

importantly, how they responded to those who needed God’s help. This crash course in the Jesus School of Leadership prepared James for the role he would eventually have as the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.

Issues of Performance: Leading from the Inside Out One of the biggest challenges facing leadership development in the twentyfirst-century Church is the advent of social media-fueled celebrity leadership culture. This culture seems to promote fast success, numerical growth as the primary metric of organizational health, and a type of hero worship that only adds to the multitude of pressures that leaders face. Although the methods have changed since the first-century leadership of James, the inherent problem of leader worship has existed in some form since the birth of the Church. The Apostles led in an era where emperor worship was everything. Even Jesus cautioned his disciples about the trappings of the Greco-Roman power dynamic (Mk. 10:42–45). As an organization, the Church exists as the people of God, living out the mission of God, to advance the Kingdom of God. Yet, as with various types of organizations, the Church is not an independent organization that functions based on the needs and demands of its members. On the contrary, health and effectiveness come when healthy leaders are developed and deployed. The question is, what should these developing leaders learn to safeguard against the pressures of the growing and complex organizational realities? For the Christian leader, the answer lies in the leadership examples of Jesus and his original apostles. These are the same lessons that James learned from Jesus. According to Chandler (2014) Christian Spiritual Formation is “an interactive process by which God the Father fashions believers into the image of his Son, Jesus, through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit by fostering development in seven primary life dimensions: the spirit, emotions, relationships, intellect, vocation, physical health and resource stewardship” (p.  173). This formation is critical to combating leadership fatigue. Yet, this formation only comes by following the example of the healthiest leaders. Vos (2012) identified 12 spiritual practices that lead one in the direction of Christ. One could argue that these Jesus Practices were the foundation of early apostolic leaders such as Peter, James, John, and James the Brother of Jesus: • Prayer (Mk 1:35) • Solitude (Lk. 5:16)

104 

C. A. SERRANO

• Silence (Matt. 15:23; 26:63) • Meditation (Joshua 1:8; Ps. 1:2; Lk. 6:12–13) • Study (Lk. 2:41–52) • Simplicity (Matt. 8:19–20; Lk. 9:57–58) • Fasting (Matt. 4:1–2) • Worship (Lk. 4:16) • Celebration (Jn. 2:1–12) • Service (Matt 15:30) • Confession (Matt 26:36–56) • Fellowship (Jn. 15:12–17) Each of these practices is found within the Life of Christ as spelled out by the Gospel writers. The underlying principles and importance of these practices are in the writings of Peter, Paul, James, and Jude. To lead like Christ, one must first live like Christ (Vos, 2012). One could argue that the Church is one of the most complicated organizational systems in existence. The Church is complex because it is first and foremost a people and not just a place. People are why the Church exists. It is through the Church that the mission of God flows into the world. However, it is also through the Church that leaders develop for the mission of God. In this way, the Church should be more than an impromptu gathering of like-minded people or a scattered collection of individuals who hold to the same truths. The local Church is made up of systems and people. To reject the former almost guarantees that one’s Church will soon be devoid of the latter. Systems can be anything from the house church that uses Facebook to coordinate their weekly gatherings to the megachurch that has a full-time production team for their weekend experiences. Systems are not bad in and of themselves. In many ways, systems keep the Church from chaos. However, systems are not the only thing. Systems are not even the main thing. People are the main thing, which is what Jesus modeled, and this is what the original church leaders such as James focused on as they built the first systems of the Church. People matter. After all, it is the people who run the systems. The systems exist to serve the people, not the other way around. For the Church to develop and sustain the momentum necessary for a movement, the Church must be organized (Hirsch & Catchim, 2012). The Church needs systems and people. The problem is, how does a leader strike a balance between the two? Too much of a focus on people and the Church becomes a social gathering of the like-minded. An over-emphasis on people turns

8  LEADING UNDER PRESSURE: JAMES AND THE SHADOW OF JESUS 

105

the Church into a club for the religious few. Conversely, too much focus on systems and the Church begins to function like a well-tuned corporation or a dogmatic and closed-system. This is precisely the issue that James in faced in the only documented account of his leadership in action.

Issues of People Pleasing: Making It Difficult Versus Making It Plain As of this writing, some of the most powerful geopolitical councils on earth are making decisions that will have a global impact. In the United Kingdom, the Monarchy, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons are feverishly debating the details of the United Kingdom’s controversial departure from the European Union. The pressure of these discussions has already in a change of leadership at the highest levels. Although they are no strangers to adversity, the leaders in Westminster Palace will only survive this crisis if they are resilient in their decision-making. Likewise, as of this writing, the US House of Representatives are investigating and debating a course of action that will carry long-lasting ramifications for their country and the world: The impeachment of the president of the United States. To call this a crisis in leadership almost feels like an understatement. It will take resilience in decision-making for the United States to weather this present storm. Decision-making is arguably one of the most stress-inducing elements of leadership. Being in charge does not mean getting to make all the decisions. Rather, being in charge means living with the weight and ramifications of the decisions that are made within the organization. Decisions are the organizational mechanisms through which problems find a resolution. Since it is often impossible for a leader to implement a perfect choice, many leaders choose to stick with a bounded rationality approach (Ivancevich & Konopaske, 2014). This approach causes leaders to favor whatever seems reasonable enough. This approach may exist in organizations steeped in tradition and hierarchical leadership. For example, in the world of ecclesial leadership, the quest for the best practices and strategies for rapid Church growth may lead decision-makers to forsake calling, context, and environmental uncertainty for pragmatism. Although thousands of years separate twenty-first-century church leaders from the Church in Acts, the realities of complex organizational growth and expansion serve as a bridge of relevance that connects the leadership

106 

C. A. SERRANO

of James to the frontline leaders of today. Organizational structure ­contains three basic components: division of labor, the hierarchy of authority, and formalized rules and procedures (Hatch, 2013). The early Church practiced koinonia, which means that they not only shared possessions; it also implies that they equally shared in the work of the ministry from a place of unity (Gaebelein, 1990; Horton, 2001). Furthermore, this flat distribution of labor was not forced upon any of the believers (Horton, 2001; Acts 5:4). Although the apostles and deacons led the Church via teaching and administration, the low-power distance associated with “having everything in common” seems to indicate that the Church did not depend upon a formal top-down hierarchy to function (Acts 6:1–7; Hatch, 2013). The first list of formalized rules in the Book of Acts regarding the function of the early Church and new members of the organization is in Acts 15. The list states that new members of the organization (Gentile believers) should: abstain from food polluted by idols, abstain from sexual immorality, abstain from the meat of strangled animals, abstain from blood, and to remember the poor (Acts 15:29; Galatians 2:10). This list does not seem to reflect a high level of bureaucracy, centralized leadership, or a controlling organizational structure. On the contrary, these requirements seem to promote freedom and general autonomy as opposed to a rigid and scripted way of doing Church. Yet, leadership still played a critical role in how the early Church made the decisions found in Acts 15. At the center of those decisions was James, the brother of Jesus. In Acts 15, James and the leaders of the Church systematically handled a problem that could have forever damaged the Church’s ability to expand effectively. Leadership does not happen on an island nor in a vacuum, and James demonstrated that it is possible to stand up under the pressures of leadership by balancing intuitive decision-making with the values of Christ-like care for people. At this point in the history of the Church, the mission of Jesus had expanded beyond Jerusalem and Judea, and the Church was rapidly growing thanks mainly in part to the apostolic efforts of Paul, Barnabas, Phillip, and Peter: But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the Church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought

8  LEADING UNDER PRESSURE: JAMES AND THE SHADOW OF JESUS 

107

great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were ­welcomed by the Church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:1–5)

One of the first and most critical steps in decision-making is identifying the nature of the problem (Ivancevich & Konopaske, 2014). James was an eye witness to one of the most consistent opposing forces to the work and message of Jesus: those who held to the Law of Moses as the only way of right standing with God. This pattern of opposition from the Judaizers if found in the Gospels and the Book of Acts (Matthew 12:1–8, Luke 11:53, Acts 4:1–22). However, the problem in Acts 15 was more than just a routine issue. The group that kept rising in opposition to the Apostles was arguing that the only way to find membership in the Church was to adhere to Mosaic laws such as circumcision, festival keeping, and certain dietary restrictions. Yet, instead of leading by a strict directive, James employed a thoughtful, participative, and intuitive decision-making process that turned this crisis into a pivotal moment of growth and maturity. First, the Jerusalem Council engaged in the form of group decision-­ making whereby all the key leaders could express their concerns and experiences as they related to the crisis at hand. This ensured that personal bias or prejudice played no role in the decision-making process. The open-­ discussion allowed for transparency and unity in the face of a divisive issue. It is also important to note that all the leaders involved modeled Christ-­ centered leadership and either referred to the values of Christ or the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures as substantiation for their arguments (Acts 15:6–21). Peter, who many considered to be primus inter pares, spoke at length, as did Paul and Barnabas. However, what stands out the most is the leader who got the last word: After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.” Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God.” (Acts 15:13–19)

108 

C. A. SERRANO

James, the brother of Jesus, listened to all the testimony, and then stepped up to decide as to what should be done. The evidence of this is within the very text. After James spoke, the apostles and elders did what he said. They wrote a letter to the Gentile believers and had it delivered by the two leaders who were on the frontlines of the Church’s expansion (Acts 15:25). In that letter, they did not make it difficult for those who were turning to God per James’ recommendation. Instead, they employed intuitive decision-­making as evidenced in their statement, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Although the Jerusalem Council Narrative is an excellent example of group-decision-making, it is also a strong example of resilience in decision-making, as evidenced by James.

Resilience Lessons from James Although there is not much literature on the leadership of James, there are many lessons that one can learn from the Acts 15 narrative and his writings to the Jewish Christians of the Diaspora. From how to treat other people, to the power of communication, to how to stand up under pressure, James’ ancient wisdom is full of practical application for twenty-first-­ century leadership. Lesson One: Communication Is Key  One could argue that when it comes to leading a group through the change process, communication is king. Communication is not only instrumental for an organization’s survival and growth, but it also “central to the social, moral, and material health of individuals and communities” (Christensen, 2014, p.  360; Mize, 2014, p. 76). According to Bolden, Gosling, Marturano, and Dennison (2003), communication is arguably the most critical competency in an effective leader’s arsenal. Studies suggest that to manage the complexities of group life leaders should blend meaning-making language, direction-­giving language, and empathetic language into a type of motivational language that functions well in the paradoxes of group life (Mayfield, Mayfield, & Sharbrough, 2015). Communication is instrumental in conflict management, problem-solving, and decision-making (Bolden et  al., 2003). Therefore, developing communication skills, especially within the complex group dynamics, should be a priority for resilient leaders. In Acts 15, James communicated with clarity, strategy, and a forcefulness that did not come across as dictatorial but rather as Christ-centered

8  LEADING UNDER PRESSURE: JAMES AND THE SHADOW OF JESUS 

109

wisdom. Roughly 15 years later, James would go on to write what is considered by some to be the only Wisdom Literature in the New Testament. In His Epistle to Jewish Christians, James used a communication style that leveraged Greco-Roman rhetoric and moral teaching with the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures and the ways of Jesus: Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. … If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. … So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. … Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. … But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. (James 1:19, 26; 2:12; 4:11; 5:12)

All five chapters of James’ Epistle contain language about communication. Moreover, the opening reference in Chapter 3 gives us insight as to whom James is explicitly talking to: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). Although James’ entire letter is directed toward church members, the heart of his letter speaks toward church leaders (Banks, 2012). In these verses, James argues for the Law of Christ (love) by demonstrating how speech is the starting place for obedience to God. These verses are not the words of a leader disconnected from the realities of organizational pressure. Instead, the language in the Epistle of James if reflective of a leader who had firsthand experience in using words to overcome adversity. Resilient leaders know how to communicate effectively. Lesson Two: Check Your Gut  Healthy organizations are resilient, adaptable, and flexible. The exploration and exploitation associated with adaptability seem to imply that uncertain environments demand a new and often risky problem-solving response if the organization is to successfully navigate the turbulent context (Limnios, Mazzarol, Ghadouani, & Schilizzi, 2014). What may have worked in the past may not work at all in times of environmental uncertainty. Some argue that it is emotion and not rationally grounded pragmatism that often influences bounded rationality in decisionmaking (Kaufman, 1999). According to Kaufman (1999), the impact of

110 

C. A. SERRANO

emotional intensity depends on the environment and circumstances, and high levels of emotional intensity (fear, anxiety, etc.) may block out rational considerations in decision-making. The bottom line is that emotions must be managed if a leader is to have any hope of standing up to decisionmaking pressure. The beauty of the decision-making process in Acts 15 is that it involved a balance of rationale, emotional, and spiritual elements. There is no question that the discussion included passionate opinions, some bias, and emotional strain. These leaders, many of whom were very well-versed in the Law of Moses and the traditions of Judaism, were being confronted with a new paradigm of relationship with God, and it could not have been easy for them to hold back how they truly felt. Present at the council were men such as the Apostle Peter who had walked with Jesus in the flesh, men such as the Apostle Paul, who was a highly trained Pharisee, and of course, James, the brother of Jesus. The Judaizers are often given a bad rap in modern commentaries. However, when viewed through the lens of empathy, it is easy to see how difficult it would be for a group of serial law keepers to openly accept Gentiles into their organization. Years later, in his Epistle, James used what seems to be a disconnected series of verses to highlight a common source of emotional stress in organizational life: What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you. (James 4:1–10)

James, drawing on the Hellenistic culture and writings of his time, argued that the source of quarrels is envy and pride (Johnson, 2004). If left

8  LEADING UNDER PRESSURE: JAMES AND THE SHADOW OF JESUS 

111

unchecked, these inner forces can manipulate leaders to make decisions based on personal preferences rather than what serves the greater good. The way to check one’s gut is to turn toward a higher source. Humility fosters resilience in decision-making. Again, James did not write his Epistle from a position of inexperience. On the contrary, he knew firsthand that leading from a position of “[i]t seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” produces results that strengthen an organization in times of change and uncertainty. Resilient leaders lean on humility to manage their emotions. Lesson Three: Keep People First  Organizations are made up of people and systems. Systems are essential for growth, productivity, and leadership development. However, at the core of every healthy organization is an awareness that people are the main thing. This is especially true in ecclesial organizations. When ecclesial leaders remember that Church is all about people, they will not get bent out of shape when someone challenges the way we have always done it. The Christian faith centers on one truth: Jesus died and rose again for people, not systems. James’ leadership in Acts 15 and the heart of his Epistle 15 years later reaffirm the servant based teachings of Jesus. For example, people were the purpose of the Jerusalem council. The Apostles gathered to discuss the inclusion of Gentiles because they were not just witnesses to religious conversions; they were witness to the power of lived-out Christianity. Sick people were finding healing, poor people were having their needs met, and broken people were finding wholeness within the community of believers. The Apostles were aware that the only thing standing in the way of more people being able to experience and enjoy the compassion-based life of the Church was the systems that had been in place within Judaism for centuries. Thus, after everyone had shared his/her experiences regarding the new Gentile believers, James led the way by offering one of the most people-focused statements in the book of Acts: “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (Acts 15:19). In his Epistle, James argued that church leaders and all Christ-followers must have a compassionate view of all people: James led the Church by declaring that they should not make it difficult for people who are turning to God.

112 

C. A. SERRANO

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

The leadership of James, as exemplified in his writings and actions, reinforces what we now know about the efficacy of values-based leadership. Vondey (2012) says, “leaders will face various trials and need wisdom to persevere in spite of those trials in order to become perfect, or in more realistic terms, better leaders” (pp.  157–158). Better leadership comes from service, and service is rooted in a compassionate posture toward others. Better leadership happens when we show no partiality, especially toward our own biases and preferences. Resilient leaders resist the urge to turn negatively inward in times of adversity but instead, focus on how to serve others and the greater good best when it comes to tough decision-making. Although there are no recorded instances of James facing a moral failure such as King David, a spiritual failure such as Peter, or the political pressure faced by Moses and Joshua, the scriptures do give us plenty of insight into how James led under pressure. James had to lead in the shadow of his older brother: Jesus. Yet, rather than running from that pressure, James found shelter in the shadow of His brother’s teaching and life (Ps. 91:1).

References Banks, T. (2012). Controlling one’s tongue in leadership: A socio-rhetorical inner-­ textual analysis of James 3:1–12 and a quantitative analysis pilot study. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 4(2), 87–133. Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., & Dennison, P. (2003). A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter. Chandler, D. J. (2014). Christian spiritual formation: An integrated approach for personal and relational wholeness. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Christensen, M. (2014). Communication as a strategic tool in change processes. Journal of Business Communication, 51(4), 359–385. Friedman, D., & Friedman, B.  D. (2012). James the just. Clarksville, MD: Lederer Books.

8  LEADING UNDER PRESSURE: JAMES AND THE SHADOW OF JESUS 

113

Gaebelein, F. (1990). The expositor’s bible commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Hatch, M. J. (2013). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hirsch, A., & Catchim, T. (2012). The permanent revolution: Apostolic imagination and practice for the 21st century church. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Horton, S. M. (2001). Acts. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House. Ivancevich, J., & Konopaske, R. (2014). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Johnson, L.  T. (2004). Brother of Jesus, friend of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Kaufman, B.  E. (1999). Emotional arousal as a source of bounded rationality. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 38, 135. Limnios, E. A. M., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A., & Schilizzi, S. G. (2014). The resilience architecture framework: Four organizational archetypes. European Management Journal, 32(1), 104–116. Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Sharbrough, W. C. (2015). Strategic vision and values in top leaders’ communications: Motivating language at a higher level. Journal of Business Communication, 52(1), 97–121. Mize Smith, J. (2014). Making change out of change: Integrating service-learning into small group communication. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 33(2), 66–78. Myllykoski, M. (2006). James the just in history and tradition: Perspectives of past and present scholarship (part I). Currents in Biblical Research, 5(1), 73–122. Vondey, M. (2012). Wisdom for leadership: A socio-rhetorical analysis of James 1:2–8 and 3:13–4:10. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 4(1), 134–159. Vos, B. (2012). The spiritual disciplines and Christian ministry. Evangelical Review of Theology, 36(2), 100–114.

CHAPTER 9

Bouncing Back: Closing Thoughts

The Others: Leaders Worth Looking At There are hundreds if not thousands of leaders mentioned in the Bible, depending on how one defines the word leadership. In Chap. 1, I mentioned how the leadership of Jesus and Paul is so all-encompassing that it would be difficult to talk about them in one or even three chapters. When speaking on leadership, both Jesus and Paul argued that the only healthy way to lead was from the position of a servant: And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[d] 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave[e] of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42–45) 42

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (1 Cor. 9:22–23) 19

© The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2_9

115

116 

C. A. SERRANO

Yes, Jesus is the King of Kings, but his earthly leadership was not in the political sphere. The Apostle Paul was indeed a church leader who influenced the political arena, yet Paul never referred to himself as a leader in the traditional sense. Perhaps the secret to the resilience displayed by Jesus and Paul during their times of ministry and persecution was a direct result of their posture as servants. It is safe to assume that when one thinks of leadership in the Bible, they often turn toward the common understanding of a leader as being one who leads a large group of people such as a king, ruler, or boss. For example, there are 108 kings mentioned by name, 42 of who led the 12 tribes of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah, or the Kingdom of Israel. In this book, we have discussed King David in-depth, along with King Solomon and King Saul. However, future volumes could discuss the toxic leadership of the Kings of Israel and the significant reforms of King Josiah of Judah. Of the 108 kings mentioned in the Bible, most of them are various rulers of the nations that surrounded or interacted with the Hebrews and Christians, respectively. Political leaders such as Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Xerxes of Persia, Alexander the Great (Dan. 2:32;7:6;11:3–4), and Nero of Rome could all serve as exemplars for leading under pressure. However, for the sake of time and space, here are just a few of the honorable mentions that are worth further study as they relate to resilience in leadership. Esther  Of the 16 Queens mentioned in scripture, Esther stands out not only in terms of content, but because her story has all the markers of a resilience case. Some argue that the concept of servant leadership connects directly to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (Kessler, 2013). Thus, it seems logical that a great deal of ecclesial leadership research explores spirituality and ethical leadership from the perspective of servant leadership. However, one must avoid reading into the Scripture organizational leadership theories that did not exist in the Ancient Near East. Kessler (2013) argues that it is impossible to construct a pure biblical manual of Christian leadership due to the impact of cultural context and history on the formulation of organizational theory. Akinyele’s (2009) interpretive analysis of Esther 5:1–8 argues that Esther acted as a servant leader by standing up for the persecuted Jewish people. Furthermore, Akinyele highlights the importance of authority, patriarchy, submission, and Persian culture during the time of Esther, Xerxes, and Mordecai. Thus, one could argue that Esther exemplified resilient

9  BOUNCING BACK: CLOSING THOUGHTS 

117

servant leadership as she acted in obedience to her male relative, Mordecai. One could also say that although Esther exemplified bravery, she did so within the confines of cultural norms and that disobeying Mordecai’s request may have had negative consequences for Esther. Furthermore, Since Haman, and by default Xerxes, had ordered the murder of the Jews, Esther’s act of bravery was not just motivated by self-preservation, but by a resilience that stood up under the cultural and political pressures, she felt as a woman in a position of power. Instead of starting with Greenleaf’s theory and working toward Esther, future studies may want to start with the social and cultural background of Esther to see if there are more connections between servant-leadership theory, resilience, and the Esther narrative. Deborah  The Judges were the leaders of Israel before the monarchy. Deborah was the only female judge, and one of the few, if not the only female military leader mentioned in the Bible: Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. 6 She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, “Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun.’” (Judges 4:4–6)

Under her leadership, Israel faced the armies of Jabin of Canaan and won thanks to her strategic and spiritual leadership. Her entire story is in Judges, chapter 4 and 5. What makes Deborah a fascinating case in resilience is how she led despite being a woman in the Ancient Near East. She was not a Queen (Israel had no monarchy at the time), yet for some reason, the people of Israel trusted in her leadership and came to her for counsel and leadership. Israel spent 20 years under the oppressive rule of the Canaanites, and Deborah’s confident leadership led not only to victory on the battlefield but to 40 years of peace. It is no secret that on a global scale, the reality of women in leadership is still a controversial issue in some circles. This is most unfortunate due to the clear and present evidence that women are more than capable of leading

118 

C. A. SERRANO

at the highest levels and in every organizational context imaginable. In the past decade, we have seen women rise to leadership in the US military’s elite combat units such as the Army Rangers, we have seen women radically shift the US political infrastructure as elected officials, and we have seen women change the narrative of what is acceptable behavior through activist movements such as #MeToo. Globally, women are leading the way in conversations related to economics and trade and the environment as heads of state. Despite generations of unfair treatment, harassment, and culture of outright assault, women have time and again proven that they can stand up to pressure and bounce back from failures. Deborah would be a phenomenal case on how to stay calm under pressure in the face of overwhelming odds. In her story, we see a leader who gives a military order to her top commander. Yet, her commander refuses to execute the order without her being physically present with him in battle. Future studies could unlock some of the resilient characteristics of Deborah, and those studies would help advance the necessary conversation of the role of women in high-capacity leadership. Samson  Like Deborah, Samson was also a Judge of Israel. He served as a military leader and warrior during one of Israel’s many battles against the Philistines. Today, Samson reflects both a symbol of strength and a cautionary tale of how moral compromise can shipwreck even the strongest of leaders. Samson’s story is in Judges 13–15. Samson’s origin story has several similarities with other divinely appointed leaders in the Bible. For example, like Samuel who would serve as the last Judge of Israel, Samuel’s birth was the result of prayer, involved the appearance of an angle or “man of God,” and resulted in the child being set apart for a divine purpose: 2 There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. 3 And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. 4  Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, 5 for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines. (Judges 12:2–5)

This type of beginning is in the New Testament accounts of John the Baptist and of course, the birth of Christ (Jn. 1:5–37). Yet, unlike Jesus,

9  BOUNCING BACK: CLOSING THOUGHTS 

119

John the Baptist, Samuel, and Deborah, Samson did not stand up under the pressures of life and leadership. His downfall is well documented, and although his final act resulted in the death of more Philistines than he had killed when he was alive, Samson did not finish well at all. From a leadership perspective, Samson knew the right thing to do, and yet, he progressively spiraled toward the wrong action, which resulted in his demise (Ball, 2014). There are similarities between his downward spiral and the spiral of King David. Samson led via physical force, even though it was the Spirit of the Lord, who provided him with strength (Blumenthal, 2005). King David followed a similar path in the lead up to 2 Samuel 11, as mentioned in Chap. 6 of this book. In the end, both David and Samson were compromised by sexual immorality. However, unlike Samson, David lived to redeem himself beyond one final blow. Samson’s story could serve as an exemplar for how to not stand up under pressure. An examination of his life from the perspective of resilience may add to what we already know about the connection between unhealthy behavior and leadership failures. His story teaches resilient leaders that physical strength is not enough to overcome the trappings of power, fame, and leadership. John  The Apostle John is considered by many scholars to have been Jesus’ best friend. He, along with his brother James and Peter, was part of what is known as Jesus’ inner circle. John was witness to not just the ministry and death of Jesus; he was also the first of the apostles to confirm that the tomb was indeed empty (Jn. 20:110). John was also one of the key leaders of the Church. The Apostle Paul gives the final word on John’s leadership: 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (Gal. 2:6–10)

120 

C. A. SERRANO

More than that, John was a prolific author, and his Gospel account contains several narratives not included in the Synoptic Gospels, namely the most well-known passage of the entire Christian Scriptures: John 3:16. John’s three epistles give insight into some of the issues that the early Church faced as Roman persecution and false teaching increased. However, John’s Revelation of Jesus Christ stands out not only for closing the Christian Scriptures but for its complex imagery and eschatological focus. It is important to note that John’s writings fall within the framework of 3 out of the 7–8 major genres of literature found in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. John did not just write a gospel/historical letter; he also wrote three epistles and the only prophetic/apocalyptic book in the New Testament. Yet, for all that is known about John, there is a gap in the literature regarding John as a leader. For example, the Johannine community was one that had deliberately withdrawn itself from secular Roman society and established itself as a “new” society within society (Neufeld, 2011). In the Gospel of John and the Epistle 1 John, the Apostle used a type of anti-language and the adaptation of Roman phrases (i.e., Son of God) to affirm the Church as being not of this world (Neufeld, 2011). In John’s letter to the Church of Thyatira (Revelation 2:18–29), John engaged in open conflict with the Pax Romana by parodying imperial edicts to rebuke, challenge, and encourage the Church to stand firm as legitimate representatives of the Kingdom of God (Freidrich & Milton, 2002). It seems apparent the writings of John encapsulate a Christology that centers on cultural change (Freidrich & Milton, 2002). According to Poon (2006), John 21 emphasized Jesus’ ability to guide His followers from failure to forward-thinking leadership. John’s account of the restoration and re-commissioning of Peter present Jesus as a restorative change agent whose leadership depends upon an others-focused model (Poon, 2006). Thus, John’s later writings appear to be the applied versions of Christ’s teachings and practices, as documented in the Gospel of John. John faced considerable pressure from the Roman Empire and the growing Church. Yet, his writings seem to connect with an empowerment theory, which is a motivational process that positively affects follower perceptions of power relations, leadership styles, and motivation (Hoehl, 2008). Although Johannine leadership connects with the personal orientation inventory, transformational leadership, and authentic leadership, the centrality of love and the reality of one’s ability to personally change also factor heavily into how John led and developed leaders (McCabe, 2008; Poon, 2006). An examination of John’s life and leader-

9  BOUNCING BACK: CLOSING THOUGHTS 

121

ship may reveal insight into how resilient leaders can stand up to geopolitical and internal organizational pressure.

Does Everything Rise and Fall on Leadership? Leadership is a loaded word in the twenty-first century. According to the latest research, more and more people are finding it hard to trust leaders. This is especially true in the United States. This lack of trust stems from the plethora of high-profile scandals that have rocked leadership sectors from Washington, DC, to Silicon Valley to Wall Street. Moreover, the amount of exposure these failures have received due to social media only amplifies the axiom that I have shared in this book: Leadership is hard and traumatic. Yet, in a climate where leaders have lost the trust of followers, there is an ever-increasing amount of time and energy being spent to develop and train leaders. On a scholarly level, publications such as the Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, and the Theology of Leadership Journal have advanced leadership theory and practice in a positive way. Likewise, organizations such as the International Leadership Association and the Association of Leadership Educators have made great strides toward training and developing ethical servant leaders. From the Harvard Business Review to the Catalyst Leader community, practitioners are inundated with the tools needed to thrive in a rapidly changing world. Still, people are finding it challenging to trust leaders. Today’s leaders have tons of options for growth and development. However, options are not synonymous with shortcuts. I am convinced that spiritual, relational, and leadership stagnation are all directly connected to one confusing “options” with what is easy. Several years ago, I had the privilege of talking to Retired Admiral Vern Clark, former Chief of Naval Operations. He asked me about my family, my military service, and my educational journey. Then, he leaned in and asked, “Carlo, tell me about your Ph.D. program at Regent University. How is the non-­ traditional format working for you?” Of course, I gave him my standard answer when asked about my program: “Sir, it is the hardest thing I have ever done in my life.” His response was priceless. He smiled, looked me in the eyes, and said, “Good! It is supposed to be hard because life and leadership are hard!” Leadership is indeed hard. The training and developmental options are great. However, resilient leaders never confuse options for what is easy. How is it that the arguably most highly trained and thoroughly resourced generation of leaders in history is unable to exhibit

122 

C. A. SERRANO

confidence and trustworthiness to the masses? After reviewing the biblical cases in this book, I think the answer is clear: Leadership fatigue. Leadership fatigue, in my original definition, refers to the combination of internal and external trauma, work-related stress, and morally intense situations that impact and influence a leader’s decision-making and behavioral processes. However, I also think there is a follower element that affects perceptions of trust. Followers may indeed be tired (fatigued) of all things leadership. After all, if leaders in a wide variety of sectors keep consistently failing on the ethical front, then it makes sense that people would be burned out by and cynical of leadership. Instead of viewing this climate as a time to panic and overreact, I believe it is time for us to have honest conversations about the realities of leadership fatigue and the power of resilience. Bennis (1999), suggests that far too often, leadership is treated as an individual phenomenon instead of as a relational construct, which places an often-unrealistic burden on the leader to be perfect or give the appearance of perfection. The unhealthy quest for perfection leads to compromise. Compromise leads to failure. What if instead of trying to be the center of attention or the perfect boss, leaders viewed themselves as partners and servants of a greater good. In the Bible, the Apostle Paul says that Christ is the head of the Church, and the rest are only parts (1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4). Those parts are important, but one part is not greater than the other. This does not abolish leadership. Instead, I think it puts leadership in its proper perspective. Leadership is just as much about burden-sharing as it is burden-bearing. Leadership is all about empowering others to shine. For example, servant leadership is all about taking the lesser place so that the followers thrive, which allows the entire team to win and not just one central figure. Resilient leaders are not the ones with the loudest voice. Resilient leaders are the ones with the most attentive ears (Bennis, 1999). Future leaders must learn that leadership is hard and traumatic and that leaders must have a strong moral compass, healthy systems of accountability, a 360-degree vision for decision-making, and safe spaces to heal and recover when the pressure gets too high. Failure does not automatically make one a hypocrite. Failure is evidence of the human condition. Furthermore, future leaders need to learn as much as possible from the failures and victories of the leaders of the past. When combined, these practical steps may help prevent future cases of ethical and moral failure at best. At worst, applying these steps will at least instill hope in future leaders by teaching them that failure is not necessarily final.

9  BOUNCING BACK: CLOSING THOUGHTS 

123

For example, during my first semester as a Ph.D. student, I had my heart ripped out by a professor. After 15  hours of researching over 20 peer-reviewed articles and writing over 3000 words, I thought I turned in a reasonably decent term paper. However, my professor gave me a zero, not 80 percent for an average paper or 50 percent, but a zero. To make matters worse, my professor told me that I had to resubmit my work. That meant that on top of my already-full schedule as a lead pastor of a local congregation and the massive workload of finals week, I would have to turn in another version of my final paper. I could not believe that my work was not even worth one point! I was devastated, angry, and frustrated. My pride would not allow me to process how I could have earned the most inferior grade allowable in academia. After a series of email exchanges with my professor, the good professor agreed to have a phone conference with me to explain my grade. Guess what? The professor was right. I missed a critical detail in the assignment that led me astray. My professor could have failed me, but instead, the good professor gave me a second chance. Here I was arguing for a 50 percent or 70 percent, and the whole time, my professor was setting me up for success. I reworked the paper, resubmitted it, and earned an A. The bottom line is this: failure is not fatal. Sometimes our biggest leadership failures are setups for something better. Thank God for the grace of failure. With a biblical perspective, a humble heart, and a willingness to learn, leaders can overcome the stigma of failure.

Bouncing Back and Moving Forward A recent Harvard Business Review article outlined the top-100 chief executives in the world. These leaders were measured and ranked based on metrics such as profit, sustainability, and company value (Harvard Business Review Staff, 2019). However, there was no mention of how resilience factored into the apparent success of these leaders. As we have seen in this book, success and health in organizational life depend on more than just business acumen or managerial skills. These traits are beneficial, but there are ontological factors in leadership that have a far more significant role in the long run. Psychologist Angela Duckworth is well known for her research on grit and perseverance. According to Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly, (2007): We define grit as perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Grit entails working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining, effort, and interest

124 

C. A. SERRANO

over years despite failures, setbacks, and plateaus in progress. The gritty individual approaches achievement as a marathon; his or her advantage is stamina. “Whereas disappointment or boredom signals to others that it is time to quit or change trajectory; the gritty individual stays the course.” (pp. 1087–1088)

Duckworth et al. apply this theory to high achievers. Yet, I believe that the resilience modeled by the biblical leaders in this book finds a close connection with what we now know of as grit. Think about it. Despite failures, setbacks, and slow progress, Moses overcame the stigma of murder and exile and led the transformation of a group of slaves into a nation of millions. Joshua understood the long-term goal of entering and capturing the promised land, and his laser focus on the objective helped Israel take the land. Samuel stayed the course despite the corruption that surrounded him and stepped aside only after God assured Him that the time was right. David’s fall is probably the most impactful in this book. However, David did not stay down for the count. Peter learned much from his failure and Jesus’ response. Petrine leadership is all about stamina and a marathon mentality. James, the brother of Jesus, did not cave during seasons of immense pressure as the early Church rapidly grew. Every one of these cases proves that it is possible to stand up under the enormous weight of stress and, yes, bounce back when the pressure becomes unbearable. So, what is the way forward? Since leaders are expected to be skilled practitioners, strategic thinkers, and managers of complex group dynamics, they must first and foremost have the ability to lead themselves. Recently, there has been an abundance of individuals who fit the classic models of leadership yet crumbled under the pressures of their positions. One needs only to turn on the news to find another story of a high-profile leader who failed miserably at leading in the most crucial area. As I am writing this chapter, my text messages and news feed are full of stories of pastors who have committed sexual immorality, celebrities who have abused their power for personal gain, and entire organizational boards of directors who have been exposed due to unethical decision-making. This does not have to be the status quo for leadership. I believe that the Bible contains more than enough examples of how leaders can stand up to and overcome the pressures of leadership. It is not easy, but it is necessary to continue to focus on methods for dealing with the demands of leadership while also searching for redemption in the middle of failure. It is beyond the scope of this book to talk about disqualification as it relates to leadership

9  BOUNCING BACK: CLOSING THOUGHTS 

125

failure and certain leadership positions. However, I will say that of the biblical leaders mentioned in this book who experienced failure, their shortcomings did not circumvent God’s ability to use them to lead others. Peter failed and led the early Church to exponential growth. Moses failed and led Israel to the gates of the Promised Land. David failed, and his House gave the world Jesus. Leadership is hard and traumatic yet lead on we must. The way forward is resilience in leadership.

Summary of Principles for Resilience 1. Beware the power of the crowd. Leaders can stand up to the pressure of the crowd by standing firm on a foundation that never shifts. 2. Share the load early and often. Sharing the load does not mean drifting into laissez-faire leadership or strict top-down hierarchies where the praise flows upward, and the mess flows downhill. Sharing the load means identifying, developing, and empowering others to help navigate the complexities of organizational life. 3. Finish strong anyway. Even in harsh environments, leaders can stay true to sound ethical principles and a moral compass that will help them lead forward despite setbacks along the way. 4. Humility is always healthy. Since values serve as a true north for the life of an organization and its leaders, then it makes sense for a leader to seek guidance from the source of those values when things do not go according to plan. 5. Bouncing back is a necessary choice. When the weight of organizational adversity brings you to your knees, choose to “Get up!” 6. Take advantage of second chances. If at first, you do not succeed, audit your strategy, adjust tactics, make corrections, and lead on. 7. Honesty matters. Resilient leaders are honest, not only in their recognition of tough times but in how they navigate those tough times. 8. Someone is watching. The resilient leader stands up under pressure because future leaders are observing and, in many ways, modeling their behavior off the resilient leaders. 9. Someone is waiting. Resilient leaders understand when it is time to step aside and allow new leadership to take over. 10. Relationships matter. To stand up under the weight of leadership or to bounce back from a failure in leadership, one must have or seek healthy relationships based on trust, accountability, and healthy values.

126 

C. A. SERRANO

11. Failure is not final. With humility, accountability, and training, it is possible to bounce back from the depths of leadership failure. 12. Get back up. Resilient leaders know that bouncing back is the result of training. It comes from making the deliberate choice that problems will occur, stress is inevitable, and there are precautions that one can take on the front side of leadership fatigue. 13. Resilience requires inward strength. Resilient leaders bounce back by drawing on positive internal sources of power and rejecting the prideful practices that often result in failure. 14. The struggle is a catalyst for growth. Resilient leaders understand that struggle, whether physically, environmentally, or relationally, can be an excellent catalyst for growth. 15. Sacrifice is an essential part of leadership. In the context of humble, servant leadership, resilient leaders also view suffering as a means for growth. 16. Communication is key. Resilient leaders know how to communicate effectively. 17. Check your gut. Resilient leaders lean on humility to manage their emotions. 18. Keep people first. Resilient leaders resist the urge to turn negatively inward in times of adversity but instead, focus on how to serve others and the greater good best when it

References Akinyele, O. O. (2009). Queen Esther as a servant leader in Esther 5:1–8. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 2(2), 51–79. Ball, R. (2014). Christian leadership and the crippling effect of narcissism: A historical analysis of judges 13–16. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 6(1), 16–26. Bennis, W. (1999). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without the full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 71–80. Blumenthal, F. (2005). Samson and Samuel: Two styles of leadership. Jewish Bible Quarterly, 33, 108–112. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087.

9  BOUNCING BACK: CLOSING THOUGHTS 

127

Friedrich, N., & Milton, L. (2002). Adapt or resist? A socio-political reading of revelation 2.18–29. Journal for the Study of The New Testament, 25(2), 185–211. Harvard Business Review Staff. (2019, November–December). The best-­performing CEOs in the world. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-ceo-1002019-edition#the-best-performing-ceos-in-the-world-2019 Hoehl, S. E. (2008). Empowered by Jesus: A research proposal for an exploration of Jesus’ empowerment approach in John 21:1–25. Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 2(2), 5–17. Kessler, V. (2013). Pitfalls in biblical leadership. Verbum et Ecclesia, 34(1), 1–7. McCabe, L. (2008). Jesus as agent of change: Transformational and authentic leadership in John 21. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 2(1), 32–43. Neufeld, D. (2011). The socio-rhetorical force of ‘truth talk’ and lies: The case of 1 John. Hts, 67(1), 1–10. Poon, R. (2006). John 21: A Johannine model of leadership. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 1(1), 49–70.

Index

A Authentic, 57 leadership, 47, 120 B Bathsheba, 76 Burnout, 33 C Charismatic, 71 leaders, 18 Compassion, 68, 73, 75 D Decision making, 107, 112 E Emotional intelligence, 47 Esther, 116

Ethical, 54, 61 failure, 1 leadership, 47 Ethics, 2 F Failure, 55, 112 Failure framing, 3 H Hermeneutics, 7 I Incarnational leadership, 20 J James, 10, 89, 93, 99–112 Jesus, 17, 19–21, 25, 83–94, 96, 99–112

© The Author(s) 2020 C. A. Serrano, Biblical Principles for Resilience in Leadership, Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37101-2

129

130 

INDEX

John, 118–120 Joshua, 10, 35, 37–49 L Leadership failure, 2–4, 10, 19 fatigue, 4, 8, 10, 27, 31, 32, 35, 48, 61, 63, 75, 90, 103, 122, 126 M Military, 1, 5, 37, 43–45, 54, 55, 57, 61, 70 Moral failure, 19, 77, 80 Moses, 9, 10, 25–36, 38–45, 48 P Paul, 17, 21–23 Peter, 8–10, 83–96, 102–104, 106, 107, 110, 112 Petraeus, David, 9, 10, 25, 59, 67–80

R Resilience, 5, 6, 10, 11, 18, 21, 22, 31–36, 61–63, 76, 77, 79, 80, 90, 105, 108, 111, 116, 117, 119, 122–125 Resilient, 33 S Samson, 118, 119 Samuel, 10, 53–63, 68, 69, 71, 73–75, 77–79 Saul, 56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 68, 69, 71–73, 79 Servant, 20, 21, 58, 59, 68, 71, 72, 75, 88, 94, 95, 111 leadership, 43, 47, 116, 117, 122, 126 Socio-rhetorical analysis, 9 T Transformational, 71 leadership, 21, 43, 47, 120