The discussion reminds me of what we posted a few weeks ago---trying to figure out the differences between a transactional leader vs. a servant leader. Once a transaction begins---"I scratch your back (e.g., make money for you) if you scratch my back (e.g., you make money for me)---then it no longer appears to be servant leadership. The focus on the other person's growth diminishes as the dealing increases.
So I guess for a servant institution/group to keep its primary purpose, a clear mission must be set. All activities must align with that mission.
Probably easier said than done, since it may become easy to rationalize transactions like your mention of AA being approached by the distillers.
Chris,
Thanks for the thoughts. The difficulty (or lack of putting the work into it) of defining a clear mission is probably one of the biggest downfalls of our organizations. Sometimes we want to take on too much, which in the end means we really accomplish very little.
Tom, You're right. I think it is difficult to define a clear mission. One reason is the danger of rationalizing a program or task to fit it into a mission. With enough rationalization, that square peg does seem like an adequate fit for a round hole.
Like putting AA in bed with the alcohol distiller industry by being its spokesperson, as in your example.
It's seductive:
--we could reach a new audience.
--we'd have more money to run AA.
--we're doing it for the good of alcoholics
--we'd never be compromised by it!
In the end those ideas are rationalizations and could lead AA astray.
Michael Josephson has a wonderful list of rationalizations to watch out for in his booklet on Ethical Decisionmaking:
http://
www.josephsoninstitute.or...nalizations.htm
Chris,
Again, great commments and another great link. Thanks for sharing it.
Commenting by HaloScan
