Page 41 - Provoke Magazine Vol7

Leadership Corner
Appetite and Ethics
Andy Stanley’s, “Your Bowl of Stew”, discussed the tension of the appetite that excites the want for “MORE, MORE, MORE”, in every aspect of leadership. As we re- call YouTube video, “The Problem”, we are prompted to find the relation between both figures. I am calling the interviewer in “The Problem”, Ken. Ken is a Christian leader who displays a meek spirit but is left with the responsibility to find a stellar prospect with significant sales experience to grow the company’s production-- tremendously. He is approached by an interviewee who has the scoop on his prior employer’s technique for exceeding sales expectations. He even has all of their customer files inclusive of general contact information, patterns for gauging them, and competitive pricing. Ken has exponential power by taking on this prospect, but what good would it do the company? Would it ben- efit Ken’s financial status? What problems would occur if others found out the company’s new information was derived from another entity? Is the candidate a conflict of interest? The problem at hand is Ken’s bowl of stew. Per Andy Stanley, Ken’s appetite pained him right then, and not later--- telling him to reach for more. Ken wanted to impress his upper management with making the company grow. Recognition for increasing num- bers would make him look like the perfect person to lead this initiative. But in all actuality, his “birthright” or his promotion to area manager was at risk if taking on the prospective employee. Like Esau, Ken needed the prospect’s (Jacob) tactful information to satisfy his appetite. Now, Ken has the opportunity to assess the problem before hiring the candidate.
In Andy Stanley’s presentation we discussed focalism: the mind’s focus on one thing, so much so, everything else is blurred. In Impact, Irwin wrote, “Unregulated
power can erode our ethical underpinnings. Any com- promise to our core makes us vulnerable to dark motives, and power provides a potent fuel for those motives” (p. 64). With Ken’s power to hire the candidate and receive recognition for increasing sales production, he stood in his own shadow-- his darkness, to make a decision hast- ily or one for longevity. Andy Stanley made it very clear in his presentation that the appetite presents itself now, rather than later, as it did for Ken in “The Problem”. Non-perceptive leaders would allow themselves to ratio- nalize taking the “low road”. If a good leader, Ken would remember to use his Christian leadership skills which encompass morals and values. A majority of leadership roles use discretion of great quantity. If I were Ken, I would think about what I could ever trade my leader- ship role for--- NOT A BOWL OF STEW. Our appetites will never be satisfied. If we feed the internal tension, we are left to replenish it, but have failed because we fed the appetite for self-righteousness. The concept, impact bias, affected Ken not just internally, but also externally be- cause upper management’s pressure and the candidate’s exclusive information. We must reframe our appetites to protect our future.
Readers, let’s do a bit of critical thinking, to identify times in your career (organizationally or personally driv- en scenarios) you’ve been tested with acting selflessly or greedy. As leaders, we are constantly left to leverage our own needs with that of those who we are left serving. Fuel the greater good, to strengthen your core focuses. Choosing to act unethically, to grow yourself, will result in dark outcomes in leadership, gravely affecting the fol- lowership’s thoughts and behaviors. In the most difficult times, let’s apply taking the high-road in every instance.
Robyn Easley, MOL – ROBYN the Model
Provokeusmag.com 41