It was about 8:30 PM when Dr. B and I left the faculty lounge to head home for the night. As we walked out, a student was at the front desk, dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt. Dr. B addressed the student, and commented on his lack of a Bryan College polo or t-shirt. The student said that laundry was too expensive. Dr. B responded that he would be happy to bring in a few quarters for the student. The student seemed surprised by this. Dr. B said that just as people would judge him based on the success of his clients, Dr. B evaluated his success based on the success (and appearance) of his students. He summed up the dialogue with “when you are successful, I’m successful.”

A Million Opportunities for Happiness
This is not a new idea, of course. The Dalai Lama once said to a group of monks, “if I am only happy for myself, I have just one source of happiness. If I am happy for the happiness of others, then are millions of opportunities for happiness.” Many spiritual and secular leaders have noted that our ability to be happy for others is one of the greatest sources of happiness within ourselves. Marshall Rosenberg, the founder of Non-Violent Communication, cites a childhood experience that reflects this point as one of the key starting points for NVC. He noted that his uncle always had a smile on his face while caring for Marshall’s ailing grandmother. From this, among other experiences, Rosenberg deduced that one of the sources of human satisfaction was the knowledge that we had help others connect to what was alive within them.

Dr. B’s comment struck me as being both wise and unusual. Certainly, it had a ring of impracticality. Would he be able to give quarters to EVERY student who couldn’t do his or her laundry? What if they had problems with gas? Would he bring in $50 to help the student get to school. While the answer seemed right, how truly right was it?

Influence, Not Power
These questions are probably germane and relevant. However, they completely miss the point of what Dr. B was doing at a deeper level with this student. He was demonstrating the difference between influence and power. This is a critical idea within servant-based leadership; in fact, it is the cornerstone of servant-based leadership.

In his sometimes overbearing, yet provocative, presentation of servant-based leadership, James Hunter invokes the image of several historically powerful figures-Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Mother Theresa. Each of them, he notes, had no power. They had no great armies, they had no ability to force others to do their will. What they instead had was influence. Through the power of their own convictions and their own inner quality, they drew others to them. While it is true that Adolph Hitler, for example, did much the same thing, the key difference was what they then asked of their followers. Gandhi amassed thousands to protest the salt tax imposed by the British empire in an act known as satyagraha. While historians generally agree that the protest had little immediate impact, it is notable that one of its deep impacts was the recognition that Britain’s rule of India was predicated almost entirely on the acceptance of that rule. In other words: the power of the British over India existed only as long as the Indians allowed it to exist.

Old style management (and teaching) techniques rely on power. Much like the British, this style of management is entirely based on the acceptance of that power by subordinates. One of the key shifts that is occurring in the current young adult generation is a total rejection of power as a management strategy. In fact, as James Hunter notes, most young people will immediately react in a negative way to the use of outright power to manage a situation. Whether this is good or bad is irrelevant-it is a fact of this generation. Trying to use or exist in a power-based model will only result in defiance. “Do this because I say so” exacts from them the exact opposite behavior.

When Power Fails…
When management techniques based on power fail, the only other real option is influence. Influence, however, is often misunderstood. It is not, “do this for me and I’ll give you a cookie.” That’s bribery, not influence. The dictionary defines “influence” as “the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something.” Influence is an internal quality of a leader, not a external action.

Power is difficult to leave behind because we are taught continuously that power is everything. But our language is also charged with “power” as an impersonal force that leaves us powerless, or worse, not responsible for the things that happen to us or others. The phrase “the powers that be” is probably most often invoked to indicate a decision with which we disagree, but nevertheless are required to follow. Power is also a fairly useless commodity when there is no one on whom to exercise it or over which to wield it. Donald Trump has power because all of his employees have bought into the idea that he has power. Beyond that, he’s pretty much an average guy with a good suit and bad hair.

Trying to exercise power over any form of subordinate is usually unsuccessful, as it motivates someone out of fear. Fear is a powerful motivator for a time. But without threats of continual punishment and without continuous carry through on those threats, fear rarely can be sustained. As fear wanes, motivation wanes, and the subordinate returns to his or her old behavior. And so the cycle begins again.

Agape as True Power
What is the element behind influence that is different than power? I found the answer to this question incredibly insightful. In the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 22, verses 36 – 40, Jesus delivers his famous lines on “love thy neighbor as yourself.” The original Greek for this is: “agaphseiv ton plhsion sou wv seauton.”

Here’s an interesting thing about the Greek language and the word “love.” Greek has three main words for love: eros, philia, and agape. The first two words denote “erotic” or romantic love and “brotherly” or “communal” love (think Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love). Neither of these Greek words appear in the Bible. The third word, agape, and the root of agaphseiv above, connotes a love that is given equally to all, that is unselfish in its generosity.

Based on this definition of agape, one way to translate the original Greek phrase might be: “Hold your neighbor in your heart as you do yourself.” In other words, as you wish for yourself, wish for others. In this admonition is the seed of what constitutes leadership, and what motivated Dr. B’s comment to that student. When we lead from a perspective of agape, we realize that the misfortune and success of others is a reflection of our ability to accept them as reflections of ourselves.

Signs of Agape in Leadership
Knowing this is all well and good, but how will we know that we’ve achieved this level of leadership? First of all, this level of leadership is incredibly challenging to reach, but not impossible. Challenging, because we have all learned that leadership is power; not impossible, because most of us also understand that when others act out of agape, we feel the difference in their responses to us.

When we lead through agape, through servant leadership, others around us will see two things in their actions. They will recognize that way in which we have shaped within them positive behavior, and credit us for it. Second, they will recognize the behaviors that do not serve them out of a desire to improve, not out of shame. The first recognition is marked by a student coming up to us and saying, “look what I accomplished! I couldn’t have done it without you!” The second recognition comes when student says, “I know I should have reacted differently in that situation. What can I do next time?”

I think it’s safe to say that if we heard the second one we would keel over from cardiac arrest in surprise. But I think it’s also safe to say that we ourselves might be challenged to do this second part in situation where we ourselves can chose shame over self-growth. This is the curse of our power-based thinking. When we chose shame or defiance over self-growth, we have really “em-powered” the person with whom we are talking or working. Most of our students hear power in what we say to them, and usually, they are right. If we instead we chose behaviors out of the desire to grow, and the insistent and persistent perspectives that others wish that growth for us, we begin ourselves to move from a servant leader perspective. When we move from a servant leader in ourselves, than this naturally exhibits itself in our interactions with other human beings.

What I Hope Will Happen
Here’s what I hope happens next. Dr. B will bring in those quarters for the student — because he said he would. The student will wear his Bryan College polo, and proudly show Dr. B that he is wearing it. Dr. B will smile and nod, and say, “Great job! I’m sure your pride in your appearance, and in this school will keep you motivated to wear that polo. And, if that ever fails, know that at the very least, I’ll smile every time I see you in one.”

I’m not a betting man, but I’m willing to bet a couple of laundry quarters that both Dr. B and this student are going to be changed from this interaction. If I’m wrong, I’m out a few quarters. If I’m right, I’ve got one more person who will perpetuate for himself, his family, and his community the benefits of his pride in himself, his school, and his future.

Seems like a good bet to me.

I am very lucky as a homosexual male that I have rarely felt unsupported by those close to me.  Tonight I faced driving past a group of people holding “Yes on Proposition 8″ banners.  One of the (many) groups was holding a pride flag that had been written on with a message that was not supportive of gays and lesbians.  As my partner and I sat at the red light hearing the chanting of the groups, I thought to myself, “I will never have the opportunity to do the same to them.”

The Conundrum of Staying in the Place of the Heart

Neem Karoli Baba, a great Indian saint and bhakta, said, “Do what you must do with a person, but never put them out of your heart.”  As I looked at the group, I noticed most of them were young, perhaps too young to vote.  I also began to project that many of them were of Slavic descent, which connected to my perception that many of the Russian churches organize their members in anti-gay events.  My partner said, “they have a right to their opinion.”  My agitation and annoyance now spread to him for doing what I perceived as supporting them.  I started to become very physically hot and uncomfortable, as if any moment any one of them might have walked up to the car and started to verbally attack me.

I held a lot of anger in my heart towards these people.  I felt judged, personally attacked.  Of course, nothing about their actions was directed towards me specifically.  However, their message was directed towards a group with whom I identify and feel that I belong.

As I sat there, I began to realize that, although these people were taking action to limit my rights and abilities, I would never be in a position to limit their rights and abilities.  I would never, I thought, be able to pass some legislation that would make them feel as powerless as I did at that moment.  I would never be able to attack the core of who they are, and render them completely speechless with the virulence of my opinion, of my hatred towards them.

The Process

It is easy to believe that spiritual people should always be in a space of love, that we must accept everyone.  I don’t think this is true.  What I believe is that we must be able to respect the right of others, to not judge them, but be able to disagree with their opinions.  This is incredibly hard work.  I cannot feel, on a instinctual level, anything but anger towards people who would seek to limit my choices.  My NVC experience and focus tells me that anger is the result of a need not being met.  I know what need that is: the need to be recognized and to be acknowledged.

The people waving signs asking for Californians to “respect the sanctity of marriage” by defining it as “a union between a man and a woman” are acting out of fear.  I could spend pages writing about the paradox of this statement—including the fact that the greatest threat to the sanctity of marriage is heterosexual divorce and the sanctity of marriage is created by how people exist in it, not WHO gets to be in it—but it is irrelevant to the fact that their fear threatens my sense of self.  What a strange statement, when we look at it, isn’t it?  Why is it that their fear threatens my sense of self, my sense of safety?

As we drove away from the light and the crowds, I had to process a huge number of feelings.  The foremost, of course, was anger.  I knew that I couldn’t been angry at these people and get to a productive place.  I also knew that I wasn’t going to take the time to stop and connect to them.  I wasn’t ever going to be able to walk up to them and do that, and I wasn’t going to be able to stop seeing them as labels, as groups without individual identities.  So, I had to do the work on myself.

Getting to Love

Choosing love is hard.  But I had to start really thinking about how I was going to acknowledge this feelings and see where they could lead me.  I wish I could say that I got to love, and that writing this now I am at that space of love.  I’m not.  I’m still frustrated, and I still want to “get even” with those people.  Probably in the same way they might want to “get even” with me.

What I realized by going through these feelings is that I couldn’t get to love without first getting to the place where I could disengage from my own fear.  I had to begin the process of letting go of my anger as a starting point for how to change the situation.  I am still in that process even as I write this.  Where I can start, though, is by accepting that there viewpoint is not acceptable to me.  What, therefore, should I do?  I can make choice not to agree—I already voted “no” on the proposition—and I can also make the choice to recognize that their choice, and their actions, cannot diminish my own.  Even if they inspire fear in me, or anger, I cannot let that be where I start.  I have to start from love, in whatever form that takes.

A Little Intro to NVC
Non-violent communication, developed and championed by Marshall Rosenberg, provides an imminently practical, but profoundly empowering, method of sharing feelings and needs with others.  The communcation model is based on a four step process consisting of an objective statement of what has occurred; the feeling that the occurrence creates; the need underlying the feeling; and a request to help the other party recognize how to meet a need while respecting his or her own boundaries.

Because non-violent communication is a feelings-based system, it can be challenging to use, particularly if we have never really been empowered to communicate our feelings and feel safe about doing so.  While I have no issue communicating my feelings–just ask anyone who knows me—I do feel that my feelings are occasionally not worth expressing.  Of course, this idea is antithetical to principles of non-violent communication.  ALL feelings are worth expressing, although we must be aware of how we are expressing them.

Regretting Regretting Regret—HUH?
In a recent conflict with someone I am very close to, I had the opportunity to experience the challenge of expressing my needs and feeling good about doing it.  The specific conflict had to do with plans that may or may not pan out due to a work conflict.  I felt very frustrated by this, because I had really wanted to spend time with this person, and I felt that the work conflict was a choice, not a necessity.  I felt like I was not valued and that bothered me.  So I felt compelled to call my friend and express this opinion.  I explained to him that I was feeling frustrated by the situation, and although I was not frustrated at him, felt the need to share my frustration.

Predictably, the conversation did not leave me feeling positively about expressing my feelings.  I immediately started regretting my choice to express my feelings.  It did not alleviate my stress, my frustration, and I felt that I had added to my friend’s stress.  So I began to spin on my decision, wondering why I had felt to compelled to call, why I hadn’t sat and mediated and confronted the question of “Who am I?” as way to recognize that my feelings were just a programmed response to my need to be needed, why hadn’t I waved my arms and done Dance of Shiva, why why why?

Then, being as advanced—or screwed up, take your pick—as I am, I began to realize that it was silly to regret what I had done.  I began to regret my regretting.  I had done a good thing by expressing my feelings.  I was just worried about how they had been received.  I was reacting to the reaction of my friend, not my own reaction to my sharing my feelings.  So I began to feel a little bit better.  Then, of course, I picked up the phone and called my friend to apologize for my expression of my feelings.

Getting to NVC
This scenario is not a joke, and it’s likely that many of us feel the same way at times.  What I’ve found out from using NVC and learning about my own emotional landscape is that we have a need to express our feelings, but that doesn’t mean that our feelings are about creating positive change.  What does that mean?  In NVC there is a sense that there is a hierarchy to empathy and the NVC process, the third level of which is being aware of how someone else influences you.  Shining the light of consciousness onto our own emotional reactions to others is an important part of awareness, since it means that we are not simply reacting.  Instead, we are building an awareness that can lead to a greater and deeper empathy.

In the situation I just described, I correctly identified that I was frustrated by not being able to fulfill my original version of my plans.  However, my frustration was truly based in a complex set of emotional reactions to both the situation and the person in question.  Without digging through my own trash and blogging it up for your enjoyment, I realized that I was reacting to this situation based on past disappointments.  I came to this realization after completing the trip in question, and finding that everything was great, it all worked out, and everything was fine.  I had a good time going by myself, and he had a good time relaxing, both of us stress-free and completely satisfied by our individual experience.

Of course, that’s the fourth level of the NVC process: working to understand the feelings of another, and by doing so, derive satisfaction from supporting others in their own process of growth.  So, I met my need to go on a brief trip, he met his need for relaxation, and we both felt that the other was completely okay with these needs being met in this way.  How great is that?

Learning More
Interested in learning more about this kind of thing?  There’s a lot of great resources for this on the web, such as the Center for Nonviolent Communication, or by joining me in one of my workshops on the topic.

Thanks for reading!