Shepherding 002

Shepherding 002

Trust-worthiness?  Why start with there? 

Shepherding is all about the Shepherd.  It all starts and stops here.  If the Shepherd is not trustworthy then the sheep will be distressed.  So what do I mean by trust-worthy?

This is a tough one and will be more or less difficult depending on the individual’s personal philosophy.  But for my purposes I define trust-worthiness as follows.

One is a trustworthy shepherd when those under your care are secure in their belief that you will consistently do the right thing.

This does not mean you will never be in error and not do the right thing.  It does mean that your personal values are clear enough and proven enough for the sheep to have less anxiety and hence the freedom to perform at their best.

Now there’s the rub.  How do you determine the “right thing?” 

We could engage in a never ending conversation about how one determines right and wrong.  Philosophy, religion and psychology all have their many perspectives.  But the main point is that the shepherd chooses their criteria for right and wrong.

Though right and wrong are commonly subjective to the max, the Shepherd will have to have formulated some basis for their choices and then use them as objectively as possible.

An example of the quandary is the difference between something that is wrong and something that is not liked.  Just because something is not liked does not make it wrong.  I illustrated this to a church group once in reference to applause in a worship service.  I don’t like it – it bothers me – BUT there is nothing wrong about it.  Fortunately they got it and when I was done with the session I got a standing ovation.

There are general rights and wrongs that all Shepherds would subscribe to.  In the workplace, hitting, spitting and yelling are pretty much non-starters.  They are, except in Mixed Martial Arts and Pro Wrestling – wrong.  That’s not a toughie.  But, what about gossip, back-biting and inappropriate criticism?  What about sulking?  What about passive-aggressive behaviors?  Are they wrong? 

What about the powerful personality which, when not checked, runs over others?  What about micro-management? 

Rudeness, cruelty, meanness, in tolerance (of some things) --- are they wrong?

What about other behaviors?

The stress here is, obviously, on those things that effect relationships.  Think this through:

"In organizations, real power and energy is generated through relationships. The patterns of relationships and the capacities to form them are more important than tasks, functions, roles, and positions."   Margaret Wheatly

The Shepherd must be aware of and to a reasonable degree involved in the relationships of his sheep.

A department of highly trained and competent professionals had been in chaos of over six months.  The rupture of a relationship between two of the individuals had so affected the environment that very little was getting done well.  Most of the staff had chosen sides or chosen to escape.  Communication was at best difficult and collegiality was impossible.

Called in to assist in “fixing” the problem I was asked how long I thought I would need.  I proposed three hours.  I had the supervisor (Shepherd) come into the room with me and the two individuals and state, “You will work with Michael to resolve the issue or one or both of you will have to go home.”  Then the Shepherd left.  I met with each individual or an hour and then met with them both for an hour and the situation was “fixed.”

A simple misunderstanding created the rupture which unaddressed affected the whole.  The error?  Not addressing the issue when it first became apparent. 

Though the Shepherd needed to intervene as soon as they were aware of the problem the difficulty is that issue of right and wrong.  Commonly such an intervention is to ascribe wrongness to one party or another, hence the hesitation to engage.  But the greater issue of what was right or wrong for the whole “flock” was ignored until the whole flock was distressed.

Importantly, there was no “blame” to be lain at anyone’s feet but simply a misunderstanding to resolve.  Yes, I know we’re all grown-ups and professionals and we ought to be able to resolve these things ourselves.  But, the fact is we typically don’t and they never fix themselves.

The right thing in this situation would have been for the Shepherd to either intervene themselves or find someone who could – BEFORE it began to affect everyone else. 

Relationally, what do you as a Shepherd hold as being wrong, as being right?  Certainly it is not wrong that co-workers disagree, misunderstand or even argue as long as the goal is to resolve the issue before it damages the relationship.  Sometimes the Shepherd can help resolve it, sometimes the sheep can resolve it themselves and sometimes you need some outside help.  But I think we would all agree that it is wrong to allow ruptured relationships in the flock to adversely affect the rest of the flock.

No, you don’t need to make a list of rules!  But you do need to let the flock know when you view things as wrong.  You are the Shepherd – right?

John and Sam are always taking shots at each other.  They laugh and others laugh with them.  Is this behavior right or wrong?  Remember, this is in the context of the workplace (sheep-fold).

It may be OK with John and Sam.  It may be OK with everyone else.  But is it OK with you?

Do your sheep know your boundaries and expectations and can they trust you to hold them accountable to them.

Of course I have to provide a disclaimer.  Someone who is in leadership and is, relationally, morally and/and ethically impaired or bankrupt is not a Shepherd.  

They are a Wolf.