Between Faith and Ideology

In the July 15, 2012 issue of the New York Times, Ross Douthat criticized the current state of liberal Christianity. In the article, Mr. Douthat seemed to place a large share of the blame on the writings of John Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopal bishop and liberal theologian.

While I’m willing to admit that liberal Christianity has its problems, I’m not sure one man is responsible for its ills. Although I’m not Episcopalian, I’ve read a number of Bishop Spong’s books in my quest to understand and define my own personal beliefs. I don’t agree with everything Bishop Spong’s books said, but I do feel that those works demonstrate a careful studying of his religion and a set of beliefs informed by thought and reflection. His model is one I think every person of faith should follow, regardless of religious affiliation.

 I’m also not convinced that conservative Christianity is as healthy and strong as Mr. Douthat wants to believe. Truthfully, I think many of the world’s major religions are at a crossroads, feeling the pressures of an increasingly interconnected global economy and the changes wrought by technological advances.

Certainly, the Roman Catholic Church is grappling with ideological divisions between liberal and conservative leaders. Most of the Protestant denominations face similar issues, as Mr. Douthat’s op-ed noted. In the past decade, Muslims have also found themselves at an ideological crossroads, with Western nations and liberal imams demanding that liberal Muslims denounce the activities of the September 11^th terrorists, while conservative imams have escalated their anti-Western rhetoric in response to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To my mind, faith is a personal matter, and ideology should be too. Let me unpack that statement. I define faith as the set of beliefs that governs a person’s actions, the person’s moral and/or ethical compass in life. In contrast, ideology is the outward demonstration of that faith. I think that definition works for most of the world’s religions, and it seems to apply also to those who are agnostic or atheist.

Mr. Douthat’s article critiques the liberal Christian ideology that welcomes multicultural influences and pluralism. In leveling that criticism, he forgets that Americans have developed a firm belief in pluralism, using our multiculturalism as a source of strength. To abandon that in the pew or the temple or the mosque is to turn our backs on one of our country’s great assets.

Those of us fortunate to have friends who are Christian, atheist, Buddhist, Wiccan, Muslim, agnostic or Jewish see how interacting with believers from different backgrounds strengthens our own faith and deepens our connections to our own beliefs. The problem isn’t with multiculturalism. The problem is with an anti-intellectualism movement, which asks that people stop thinking for themselves and blindly follow another person’s faith and ideology. People of faith need to examine their beliefs to ensure that the inward faith and its outward manifestations are in accord.

On Leadership: Abusing the Perks

This is the second of my "On Leadership" posts.

I had the great misfortune to work for a bad supervisor at one point in my career. This person, who I will call Lisa, was one of those supervisors who loved the perks of leadership but never embraced its responsibilities.

Are You Here?

Lisa had strict rules for how her team should operate. Each quarter, she asked us to give her a work schedule. For example, someone might say they needed to leave early on Wednesdays for a class. In their schedule, that person might account for leaving early by coming in early on Wednesdays or working extra time on Tuesdays and Thursdays. While Lisa would initially approve that request, she invariably complained when the person left each Wednesday for that class. She always asked if they had actually completed their work, complained about her generosity being abused and asked if they really actually needed the class.

Lisa also regularly had the IT department run reports on her staff’s computer activity. This was to verify that each person actually logged onto the system each morning when they said they would start work. She also used the reports to verify that no one clocked out too early. Lisa needed these reports because she was never in the office before 10:00 am. And, she frequently left the office for the day between 2:00 and 4:00, long before anyone else on the team. Lisa’s lunch breaks were typically two or more hours in length, often spent at a nearby bar where she drank her lunch and chatted up our division’s vice president, who was also her immediate supervisor.

Rest and Relaxation

In addition to her scheduling requirements, Lisa also had strict policies about when people could take vacation and how they must prepare before leaving the office. Her staff had to give lengthy lead times for vacation requests and Lisa reserved the right to cancel those requests, even if she had initially approved them, if the person didn’t have their desk clear before leaving. People worked many long hours in the week before their vacations, billing projects that were due to finish while they were away or shipping equipment on projects that wouldn’t actually begin until after their returns, just to be sure Lisa didn’t cancel their vacation requests at the last minute. Each person also had to pick a backup from the team and brief that individual on all the projects in progress, in case the backup needed to answer a call about the job.

However, the vacation rules that her team had to follow never applied to Lisa. She spent the week before her trip using her work computer to book excursions, dinner reservations and spa treatments. She would order new outfits for the trip, having the packages shipped to the office. She also spent a lot of time on the phone talking with her traveling companions and verifying that their plans were in place.

The night before her trip, she stayed late in the office, identifying jobs that would complete while she was gone or projects that she should have started before leaving. All these projects would be dumped on someone’s desk, often without warning. Lisa usually left the hapless person a voicemail or an email, telling her or him that Lisa was having all calls forwarded to that person in her absence. She asked them to start those late projects and bill out the ones that were to complete. Then, she merrily headed off on vacation, leaving at least one member of her team swamped with ill-managed projects.

Monkey See, Monkey Do

Lisa was, by any definition, a poor leader. Like so many supervisors and employers, she had one set of standards that she followed while her staff had to obey a different, stricter policy. Unfortunately, in that particular company, Lisa’s behavior was far too common. Lisa’s immediate supervisor, the division vice president, behaved in an identical manner. Since Lisa’s supervisor modeled a version of leadership that emphasized the leader’s perks, Lisa learned that supervisors didn’t have to follow the rules they enforced.

Attempts to complain to Lisa’s supervisor about her poor leadership fell on deaf ears. Since the vice president behaved in an identical manner, the reaction was, “We’re bosses and we get to do things you can’t. Deal with it.” Sadly, the company’s HR department was powerless to do anything about the supervisors and their double standards. When the HR director was approached about the problem, her reaction was, “Yes, I know they do that. And yes, it’s a terrible way to behave, causing resentment and damaging team morale. But, they have connections and we can’t do anything about it.”

Lots of Sand in the Machine

The company that allowed this behavior went through a number of ownership changes in a seven-year period. The firm was bought by a larger company, then spun back off into a small, independent company. It merged with a top competitor and eventually merged with an even larger competitor. Throughout all these changes, the company culture stayed the same. The supervisors were allowed to do whatever they pleased while their staffs had to comply with increasingly strict rules. The supervisors were given more pay and new perks while their staffs lost benefits, saw salaries reduced and watched key colleagues laid off. The staffs worked longer hours for less while the supervisors worked fewer hours for more. And yet, none of the top executives ever questioned how these practices factored into company morale, their declining profits and their clientele losses.

On Leadership: The Cheap Shot

For the next few weeks, my Wednesday posts will look at the topic of leadership. Some recent events caught my attention and prompted me to think about what leadership is and what a good leader does. As I discuss my thoughts on leadership, I’ll give my readers three examples of poor leadership and two examples of exemplary leadership. The final post will consider the future of leadership as I see it.

The event that prompted me to take up this discussion of leadership occurred during a football game between the Miami Dolphins and the New York Jets. For those who were watching the game on Sunday, December 12, 2010, you know I’m referring to a member of the Jets coaching staff tripping a Miami Dolphin player who was running down the sideline. The Dolphins had just punted the ball to the Jets and CB Nolan Carroll was running to cover the play. As he passed the Jets bench, Sal Alosi, the Jets strength and conditioning coach, stuck his left knee out and made contact with Carroll’s right thigh, sending the player to the ground.

Role Model or Not?

Much of the commentary about this event has focused on the coach’s actions as a form of cheating. While I agree his actions were an attempt to cheat, I’m more interested in what this event says about leadership, or the lack of it, in the NFL. Mr. Alosi is a member of the Jets coaching staff and therefore, by definition, a team leader. Some may disagree with me, saying he’s only the strength and conditioning coach, which limits his influence on the team. Others might say that professional athletes don’t look at coaches as leaders and role models, in the way that college and high school players do.

Whether or not NFL players look at their coaches as leaders and role models is beside the point. Mr. Alosi is paid to advise the Jets players on ways to build strength and stay in better playing condition. That role makes him a team leader, someone who makes decisions about the team’s activities and influences the players’ behaviors. By extension, his actions in tripping an opposing player suggest the Jets, as an organization, are willing to violate the game’s ethics and the governing rules of sportsmanship to gain an edge over their opponents. His action in tripping an opposing player is cheating. But, it also indicates a fundamental flaw in the moral and ethical practices of the Jets as an organization.

Following the game, Mr. Alosi admitted to tripping Mr. Carroll and said he had apologized to the player and the opposing head coach. He also said his actions “does not reflect what this organization stands for.” Mr. Alosi also says he accepted full responsibility for his actions and any punishment as a result of those actions. I commend him for making this statement. But, I’m skeptical that he actually means what he says. Like politicians and celebrities, this coach has clearly learned the punishment will be reduced if he acts contrite.

Who's in Charge Here?

Watching replays of the tripping incident, both during the game and while writing this post, showed me that Mr. Carroll’s momentum took him well past Mr. Alosi. He eventually landed and lay on the field near the core members of the Jets coaching staff. That is, I believe he was lying, injured, near where Jets head coach Rex Ryan was standing. I presume the play was replayed on the large screens in the stadium, which suggests Coach Ryan may have had a chance to see the replay. If I’m right about that, then I don’t understand why Coach Ryan didn’t immediately have Mr. Alosi removed from the sidelines. A good head coach, as the team’s on-the-field leader, would take immediate action and demonstrate to his players, the opposing team, the fans and the league that he does not condone that kind of behavior and will not stand by while people under his supervision violate the game’s protocols. If he saw a replay, he should have sent that coach off the field.

If he didn’t see a replay while on the field, that might explain why Mr. Alosi was allowed to remain on the field. However, Coach Ryan still has not spoken about the event or taken action to discipline Mr. Alosi. If he were a true leader, Coach Ryan would have already made his decision. He has had plenty of time since the game ended to fire Mr. Alosi and make a statement about the incident. But, Coach Ryan is clearly not a leader. Leadership means taking responsibility when someone under your supervision makes an error. True leaders would have already done something about this incident, something that befits its severity.

According to published reports the day after the incident, the Jets were looking into punishing Mr. Alosi and the NFL is also investigating the incident (since this post was drafted, the Jets suspended Alosi without pay for the duration of the 2010 season and fined him $25,000). Since Coach Ryan lacks leadership skills, I’m certain he is hiding behind the GM, waiting for the Jets and NFL to decide a course of action. Once that happens, he may find the courage to make a statement about the event. Or, he may simply write it off as “the Jets front office and the league have taken action and nothing more needs to be said about that incident.”

But, more does need to be said. Clearly, the Jets lack leadership, at all levels of the organization. From the lowest levels of the coaching staff to the front office, the team is playing hot potato with this incident. No one is taking immediate action. Instead, they’re “reviewing the incident and deciding on appropriate action.” They are “playing politics” with this, trying to find a way to spin the tripping incident that doesn’t lose Mr. Alosi his job but punishes him enough that the NFL doesn’t add additional penalties. They aren’t willing to take the bold stand that this is a failure of leadership and the person should be terminated. Instead, they’re trying to avoid making any major changes. This “duck and cover” response is expected from the team that punished a player’s DUI arrest by not letting him start a game. But, it shows a lack of leadership ability and an enormous dearth of ethics.