I’m currently reading “People of Faith” by John Schmalzbauer for my Philosophy of Journalism course. The book provides a cursory overview of the history of the intersection of faith within journalism and social science, as well as the current attitude toward faith in these professions. Schmalzbauer interviewed prominent Catholics and evangelicals working in these professions and asked them questions regarding their personal philosophy of faith in the workplace. Four categories describe how his interviewees deal with their professions, which are known for emphasizing objectivity, and quelling questions of faith. These professionals, he says, use privatization, bracketing, multivocal bridging languages, and the rhetoric of objectivity to cope with this tension.
In particular, I found one example of bracketing (a tactic that allows for speaking about faith, but articulates a distinction between work and faith) obviously juxtaposed with how I hope to articulate my convictions when I enter the professional world. Maureen Hallinan of the University of Notre Dame, Schmalzbauer writes, “was more than willing to talk about her religious convictions” yet makes a distinction in doing so: she is not a Catholic sociologist, but “a sociologist who happens to be Catholic.” I take issue with this cliché distinction. Perhaps Hallinan considers sociology to be part of the essence of her person more so than Catholicism. A primary way her work and faith interact, she says, is that part of God’s nature is intellect, and when she engages in the intellectual process she engages in “God-like behavior.”
However, the distinction Hallinan made between Catholicism and sociology is rooted in a rather shallow view of faith. Although I do believe engaging our intellects is important (Scripture exhorts us to it), I heartily disagree with this statement. We may engage our intellects as people of faith, but people who claim to be without faith do so as well. Therefore, this cannot constitute a way in which our faith and our professional life interact. Faith is an acknowledgment of need. Our intellects, according to Scripture, are perfected by faith. We gain greater understanding through faith, and the reorientation that faith enacts. Our intellectual processes, evidenced by the state of our world, are broken and battered. Merely thinking is not participation in God-like behavior; thinking can be a very ungodly behavior when it is not submitted to God.
I am hesitant to define how my faith and my professional life will influence each other. I believe in using prudence in each circumstance presented to me – whether that involves keeping my convictions to myself, or identifying a moment when the articulation of faith will further inform a situation. In either case, because the essence of who I am is “Christian” – one who believes she looses her life in order to find it, as Scripture so severely states it – and not a journalist who just happens to be a Christian, my faith – my dependence on God for compassion, for understanding, for the search for truth, will not be privatized or bracketed out of my professional life.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
How we lead, how we follow
In a chapter of their book "Leadership: A Communication Perspective" focusing on leadership and followership communication styles, Michael Hackman and Craig Johnson outline and describe three different leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. The basic description of each of these can be summed up in how a leader sets and achieves goals. Authoritarian leaders set goals individually; democratic involve their followers; laissez-faire contributes only when asked.
I gravitate toward a democratic style leadership for various reasons - one being, obviously, I am an American. I was raised in a country that loves and strives toward (or at least says it does) democracy. It does so for good reason. A democratic perspective and leadership style acknowledges our finitude. There is a place and a time for authoritarian style leadership. Sometimes a quick decision is called for. There is also a place and a time for laissez-faire. Perhaps a project may involve a group of people that need facilitation more than they need a decision maker. In most instances, though, a greater diversity of opinion along with minds open to reasonable consideration - though it may take longer and more energy than authoritarian decisions - will yield, if not a significantly greater result, a more satisfied community. Oftentimes, the importance of a satisfied community is demeaned. What is money or efficiency with broken relationships or a disjointed team?
Hackman and Johnson also outlined followership styles: exemplary, alienated, conformist, pragmatist, and passive. I found this portion of the chapter to be of greater interest because it explores reactions to leadership. As I reflected on my experience, and the reactions to leadership I have had in the past I realized I can be an exemplary follower, but only under a mostly democratic leadership style. I realized that, as a follower, I need a significant amount of encouragement and constructive criticism to contribute in a significant way, to contribute to my full potential. When I am under authoritarian leaders, my creative energy shuts down, my desire to interject my opinion dwindles. My only objective becomes finishing the project as quickly as possible. In a laissez-faire leader-follower setting, I find (in most circumstances) I am too afraid to act because I am unsure if I am moving in the right direction. The project, rather than energizing me with ideas, plans, and future perspectives, tends to frustrate me.
I would like to be able to display more exemplary follower qualities in a larger sphere of situations. I will experience leaders who are authoritarian in nature in my future - I can almost be sure of it; likewise, it is not far-fetched to say I will experience laissez-faire leaders in my future. I think, in simply being aware of these styles, and being aware of my natural reactions to these styles, I can acknowledge the situation I am in and adjust my natural reaction as much as possible. Adjustment may look like submitting myself to an authoritarian leader, and understanding, that I might advocate their way of doing things. Or it may look like asking more questions in laissez-faire situations in order to understand the goals of the project, and prevent frustration.
100%
I gravitate toward a democratic style leadership for various reasons - one being, obviously, I am an American. I was raised in a country that loves and strives toward (or at least says it does) democracy. It does so for good reason. A democratic perspective and leadership style acknowledges our finitude. There is a place and a time for authoritarian style leadership. Sometimes a quick decision is called for. There is also a place and a time for laissez-faire. Perhaps a project may involve a group of people that need facilitation more than they need a decision maker. In most instances, though, a greater diversity of opinion along with minds open to reasonable consideration - though it may take longer and more energy than authoritarian decisions - will yield, if not a significantly greater result, a more satisfied community. Oftentimes, the importance of a satisfied community is demeaned. What is money or efficiency with broken relationships or a disjointed team?
Hackman and Johnson also outlined followership styles: exemplary, alienated, conformist, pragmatist, and passive. I found this portion of the chapter to be of greater interest because it explores reactions to leadership. As I reflected on my experience, and the reactions to leadership I have had in the past I realized I can be an exemplary follower, but only under a mostly democratic leadership style. I realized that, as a follower, I need a significant amount of encouragement and constructive criticism to contribute in a significant way, to contribute to my full potential. When I am under authoritarian leaders, my creative energy shuts down, my desire to interject my opinion dwindles. My only objective becomes finishing the project as quickly as possible. In a laissez-faire leader-follower setting, I find (in most circumstances) I am too afraid to act because I am unsure if I am moving in the right direction. The project, rather than energizing me with ideas, plans, and future perspectives, tends to frustrate me.
I would like to be able to display more exemplary follower qualities in a larger sphere of situations. I will experience leaders who are authoritarian in nature in my future - I can almost be sure of it; likewise, it is not far-fetched to say I will experience laissez-faire leaders in my future. I think, in simply being aware of these styles, and being aware of my natural reactions to these styles, I can acknowledge the situation I am in and adjust my natural reaction as much as possible. Adjustment may look like submitting myself to an authoritarian leader, and understanding, that I might advocate their way of doing things. Or it may look like asking more questions in laissez-faire situations in order to understand the goals of the project, and prevent frustration.
100%
Monday, November 2, 2009
...the wisdom from above...
By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; and by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches.” Proverbs 24:3-4
Last week, in our ResLife leadership practicum lecture, Dr. Tim Muehloff, Associate Professor of Communication, used the above verse to illustrate a communication principle: and that is, how to proceed with the knowledge you’ve gained after you have found out what a person believes, why these beliefs seem right to that person, and made connections as to where you agree. He asserted that after we have gained the facts and information, wisdom, which is “the artful application of knowledge” is necessary. And we artfully apply knowledge in wisdom in order to understand, which, by Dr. Muehlhoff’s definition is the “prioritizing of facts, information and beliefs.”
Out of all of the principles Dr. Muehloff articulated, I think this principle – the procession of the communicator in great wisdom and understanding, baffles me the most. It’s not that I have nothing to say. I usually always have something to say. Whether what I have to say is wise or born from understanding is quite questionable. Recently though I have found I am caught up, or held down, by the post-modern winds and waves when it comes to philosophies of life, philosophies of morality, general questions about right and wrong... It seems my reason, just as much as my emotions can lead me anywhere and everywhere. I know this isn’t entirely true. A cat is often simply black. And a door opens and closes. But ask me what you should do in the depths of your depression – pills or prayer? Ask me if you should marry a guy you love and respect, but don’t necessarily get all ‘Notebook’ over? I can postulate. I can muse over the options, the possibilities, the paths you could or could opt not to take. Beyond this – and even this is lacking – I offer little.
Thus, I have come to the great and lofty conclusion that I am not enough, that I just don’t know everything. So, recently the necessity of God’s revelation has weighed heavily on my mind and heart. There are passages I understand; I gravitate to these. However, there are many that I don’t resonate with as readily. I ask, “Really God?” and then I usually move on. It makes sense I would move on; it’s tiring, and I am tired. It’s often seemingly fruitless laboring over a passage to try to understand more about the character of God that you didn’t already know, or you were not already taught growing up. I’m not talking about the passages I am overtly convicted by; I am talking about the passages where God seems strange, or I think, “If I were God…”
However, if I honestly believe I am fallen, that both my emotion and my reason are perverted and distorted from the way they were made to be, I must seek to understand the character of God as it is, not just as I relate to it. I must be changed by that which I, in my current emotional and mental state, conflict with. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2: 16-17 that, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
If I want to be thoroughly equipped for the good work of communication I need the Scripture that is God-breathed hidden in my heart. I need the wisdom from above. The wise counsel from below (at the tender age of twenty-one, mine being among the least of these) is flawed; it can leave men flailing to and fro with the winds and waves that are the eras of this world – from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment to Postmodernism, etc… I want to impart freedom to those in the chains of sorrow, or sin, or pain. But I cannot on my own merit impart that freedom which I too am given by grace. Only God can. The only way in which I have received true freedom myself is through Him – whether in spoken Scripture, or in the mere presence of His Spirit, the unspoken Word. This last principle of Dr. Muehlhoff’s is a tough one – though I think he definitely acknowledges this, and gives great space in his communication philosophies for the ‘wisdom from above.’ Nonetheless, it’s tough because to hear is, yes, a first big step; but to know what to say often seems like a cataclysmic gap that is utterly impassable. Praise be to God for His divine revelation.
P.S. - G. Stump: 100 %
Last week, in our ResLife leadership practicum lecture, Dr. Tim Muehloff, Associate Professor of Communication, used the above verse to illustrate a communication principle: and that is, how to proceed with the knowledge you’ve gained after you have found out what a person believes, why these beliefs seem right to that person, and made connections as to where you agree. He asserted that after we have gained the facts and information, wisdom, which is “the artful application of knowledge” is necessary. And we artfully apply knowledge in wisdom in order to understand, which, by Dr. Muehlhoff’s definition is the “prioritizing of facts, information and beliefs.”
Out of all of the principles Dr. Muehloff articulated, I think this principle – the procession of the communicator in great wisdom and understanding, baffles me the most. It’s not that I have nothing to say. I usually always have something to say. Whether what I have to say is wise or born from understanding is quite questionable. Recently though I have found I am caught up, or held down, by the post-modern winds and waves when it comes to philosophies of life, philosophies of morality, general questions about right and wrong... It seems my reason, just as much as my emotions can lead me anywhere and everywhere. I know this isn’t entirely true. A cat is often simply black. And a door opens and closes. But ask me what you should do in the depths of your depression – pills or prayer? Ask me if you should marry a guy you love and respect, but don’t necessarily get all ‘Notebook’ over? I can postulate. I can muse over the options, the possibilities, the paths you could or could opt not to take. Beyond this – and even this is lacking – I offer little.
Thus, I have come to the great and lofty conclusion that I am not enough, that I just don’t know everything. So, recently the necessity of God’s revelation has weighed heavily on my mind and heart. There are passages I understand; I gravitate to these. However, there are many that I don’t resonate with as readily. I ask, “Really God?” and then I usually move on. It makes sense I would move on; it’s tiring, and I am tired. It’s often seemingly fruitless laboring over a passage to try to understand more about the character of God that you didn’t already know, or you were not already taught growing up. I’m not talking about the passages I am overtly convicted by; I am talking about the passages where God seems strange, or I think, “If I were God…”
However, if I honestly believe I am fallen, that both my emotion and my reason are perverted and distorted from the way they were made to be, I must seek to understand the character of God as it is, not just as I relate to it. I must be changed by that which I, in my current emotional and mental state, conflict with. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2: 16-17 that, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
If I want to be thoroughly equipped for the good work of communication I need the Scripture that is God-breathed hidden in my heart. I need the wisdom from above. The wise counsel from below (at the tender age of twenty-one, mine being among the least of these) is flawed; it can leave men flailing to and fro with the winds and waves that are the eras of this world – from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment to Postmodernism, etc… I want to impart freedom to those in the chains of sorrow, or sin, or pain. But I cannot on my own merit impart that freedom which I too am given by grace. Only God can. The only way in which I have received true freedom myself is through Him – whether in spoken Scripture, or in the mere presence of His Spirit, the unspoken Word. This last principle of Dr. Muehlhoff’s is a tough one – though I think he definitely acknowledges this, and gives great space in his communication philosophies for the ‘wisdom from above.’ Nonetheless, it’s tough because to hear is, yes, a first big step; but to know what to say often seems like a cataclysmic gap that is utterly impassable. Praise be to God for His divine revelation.
P.S. - G. Stump: 100 %
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
