Category Archives: congregational leadership

Memo to Moses, CEO Am Yisrael, Inc.

To Moses Rabbeinu,

CEO, Am Yisrael, Inc.

Dear Moses,

We appreciate your hiring our firm to look retrospectively at the corporate revolt that you call “The Korah Affair.” To be honest, our first recommendation is that you consult some literature on Jewish leadership – we suggest More Than Managing  (Jewish Lights Publishing) which is readily available. Also, your future company executives might hire professional coaches to avoid repeating basic errors.

More on them later, but for now, we note, with concern, how much the affair took you by surprise, and how you still seem to miss its full complexity. Although hired to investigate Korah alone, we found pervasive discontent throughout your ranks: disgruntled Levites allied with Department Heads (the Tribal Chieftains, in your vocabulary); and support by Dothan and Abiram , descendants of Reuben, your oldest founding partner, giving the revolt respectability.  Korah spoke for many people!

Opposition first arose when you mishandled the episode of the corporate spies dispatched to examine your proposed takeover of Canaan Realty Industries. Their negative report was indeed shortsighted, but calling in God to condemn everyone to years of wandering was pure petulance on your part.

The precipitating factor re Korah was your restructuring of the corporate priesthood, following the spy-debacle. Sure, your second-echelon leaders blindsided you, but you had already blindsided them, unwisely isolating yourself and then having to call God back in again.

Appealing to God whenever you get into trouble may seem satisfying now, but it is no long-term solution. We project a time of corporate diversification, with your company’s presence everywhere, and with God having grown tired of these “last-minute” pleas to Divine Headquarters.  Future rabbeinus (whatever their actual titles end up being) won’t be able to count on a deus ex machina to save them.

Another thing: note the brilliance of Korah’s charge, “You went too far; the whole community is holy.” He lifted that from your own company charter (“Kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” Exodus 18:6). No wonder you almost lost this one. You isolated yourself, took counsel with no one, blindsided your team, and never explained your position to anyone, thereby ceding the high ground to the opposition.

Had Korah been properly motivated, his claim against you (“we are all equally holy”) might have led to dialogue, negotiation, and appropriate compromise: a win-win solution whereby your opposition felt heard and appreciated; and came around to supporting your nominees for the priesthood. You wouldn’t have had to call in God and slaughter the opposition.  I mean, think of all you lost by killing them instead of motivating them to work with you!

We cannot here go into all the leadership lessons to be learned from the Korah Affair, but one of them is the talmudic insistence that conflict is actually a desirable thing, as long as it is “a dispute for the sake of heaven” (machloket l’shem shamayim) – the quintessential model being the Schools of Hillel and Shammai; and its opposite (conflict for the wrong reasons) being Korah.

Korah was so alienated from your company’s process that he was not in this for the sake of heaven. Our transcript of testimony (verse 16:1) says that “Korah took,” meaning (says Rashi and others)  “he took only himself, separately” – it was all about him!

By contrast, the Schools of Hillel and Shammai argued for all the right reasons and in all the right ways. They were in constant communication, expressing legitimate differences. Hillel proved mostly victorious, but Shammai prevailed some of the time, and his name too is recorded with honor for posterity.

We recommend that your successors depend less on God as mighty intervener and more on themselves as God’s agents here on earth; less on power and more on character and knowhow. For heaven’s sake (literally!) let them remain true to core principles, encourage honest debate, treat their opposition with respect, and be open to change themselves when they are wrong. The Korah Affair can become history, something we just read once a year for reminders.

Sincerely,

Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman

Parashah Consulting

 

Advertisements

Congregational Algebra

Are you interested in launching a thoughtful conversation on what your congregation should be doing better? Most people are. But they don’t know how to begin. If you open the conversation with, “How can we do better?” you get everyone’s favorite complaint – something you have probably heard before. The conversation goes nowhere new. Conversations depend on the conversational frames that introduce them!

General Rule # 1:

Conversations require conversational frames, a way to think about the issue at hand.

We all use such frames, usually just by asking, “What do you think of X” or, ”The agenda now calls for a discussion of Y.” These straightforward frames can be disastrous because they invite people to say the same things they always do. The people who feel strongly (pro or con) reiterate what you knew they would say in advance; the whiners whine all over again; most people have nothing new to say.

General Rule #2:

Inviting conversations but ignoring the frames with which we introduce them is disastrous.

As we just saw, conversations poorly framed invite redundancy. Information theory measures information as ”the extent to which a communication cannot be predicted in advance.” By that measure, most meetings on “what we ought to do about X” elicit little or no information at all. Everyone leaves frustrated and worn out, and the meeting chair is left with copious notes on virtually nothing that could not have been predicted without the meeting even having occurred.

General Rule #3:

Conversational frames should be intriguing, inviting, unthreatening, and compelling

Intriguing: They should shed new light on the way the topic is to be               approached.

Inviting: They should get people to lean in, suspecting they have                               something to say; not sit back waiting for others who are “smarter” or            more expert” to talk.

Unthreatening: They should avoid pressing hot buttons that put people on          the defensive or suggest they should keep quiet lest they sound stupid.

Compelling: They should make the issue sound both interesting and           important – worthy of attention and requiring action.

Not all topics require such careful consideration of frames. Some issues are just “technical”; they call for “fixes” that are pretty straightforward. If the roof is leaking, you don’t need a philosophical introduction about the theological implications of water damage!

But the question of how to make the congregation a better place is not technical. It is what Ronald Heifetz calls “adaptive” – the answer will emerge only from engaging conversation that determines the actual nature of the problem. That’s where congregational algebra comes in.

I am not sure where the equation comes from (it is cited everywhere, in books and on line), and it occurs in several different forms, but I use the following version as a frame to prompt “How can we do things better” conversations. (My colleagues -Isa Aron, Steven Cohen, and Ari Kelman – and I used it in our book, Sacred Strategies, 2010]). Here it is.

C = D x V x F x B x S > R.

Or, spelled out: Change = Dissatisfaction x Vision x First Steps x Belief in ourselves x System, all of which must be greater than Resistance.

Next time you have a general conversation about doing things better, frame the discussion by asking, “What gets in our way when we try to improve what we do?”

  • Some congregations are satisfied with mediocrity; they will never feel challenged to change.
  • Others have no large Vision of where they should go. Without vision of something better, they will be leery of voicing Dissatisfaction, even if they feel it. Or, if they do voice it, they will leave dispirited, with no clear vision to guide their way beyond it.
  • Some congregations never manage to take the necessary First steps. They make plans that never even get off the ground.
  • Others lack Belief in their own ability to succeed. They have an institutional inferiority complex. When it comes to thinking big, it doesn’t even pay to try!
  • And many congregations lack efficient Systems, so that bold initiatives get started, but fizzle out and die. By System, I mean such things as good professional personnel; effective communications; mutual accountability, proper support staff; and the like.

My own experience suggests that the two most common problems are lack of vision (and, therefore, fear of acknowledging dissatisfaction) and systemic dysfunction.

Whatever the case, try some congregational algebra the next time your board meets to think through “how we can do things better.” Frame the conversation with an algebraic equation that is actually fun to discuss. Ask them what will most prevent them from succeeding at whatever it is they decide to do: Dissatisfaction? Vision? Taking First Steps? Belief in Themselves? or the System (and if, the latter, what part of the system is broken)?

It will help you generate later conversations that will target your congregation’s weakness and move you to a new level of conversation and problem solving.