These are challenging times. We have come to live with the threat of terrorism, our economy is falling at a rapid rate and the experts do not seem to agree on how to fix it. On top of that we see immorality all around us. The very fabric of our society seems to be crumbling but the good news is that others have faced dire circumstances like this before and survived. In fact, some even came out stronger than before the challenging times came. One such man was King Josiah of Judah.
We find King Josiah’s story in the Bible in 2 Chronicles chapters 34 and 35. He assumed the throne at the young age of 8 years old. His Grandfather did not follow God’s law and under his leadership Israel began to worship pagan gods. There had been no worship of the Lord in the temple for 75 years so the temple was in extreme disrepair. In addition to no worship of God, there had also been no study of God’s Word. Because of their disobedience, the curses of God as listed in Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had come true, hardly a situation to leave in the hands of an eight-year old boy.
However, Josiah was not just an ordinary eight-year old for the Bible tells us that when Josiah was 16 he began to seek the Lord.
2 Chron 34:3A
3 During the eighth year of his reign, while he was still young, Josiah began to seek the God of his ancestor David.
NLT
Josiah also began to purge the land of pagan worship by destroying all the pagan shrines.
2 Chron 34:3B
Then in the twelfth year, he began to purify Judah and Jerusalem, destroying all the pagan shrines, the Asherah poles, and the carved idols and cast images.
NLT
Six years later, Josiah began the process of repairing the Temple.
2 Chron 34:8
8 In the eighteenth year of his reign, after he had purified the land and the Temple, Josiah appointed Shaphan son of Azaliah, Maaseiah the governor of Jerusalem, and Joah son of Joahaz, the royal historian, to repair the Temple of the LORD his God.
NLT
During the restoration of the Temple, the workers made an amazing discovery; they discovered a copy of The Book of The Law. After the Book was read to Josiah, Josiah shared it with the people. Upon hearing the Word of God, the people pledged to turn back to their God.
2 Chron 34:19-33
19 When the king heard what was written in the law, he tore his clothes in despair. 20 Then he gave these orders to Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the court secretary, and Asaiah the king's personal adviser: 21 "Go to the Temple and speak to the LORD for me and for all the remnant of Israel and Judah. Ask him about the words written in this scroll that has been found. The LORD's anger has been poured out against us because our ancestors have not obeyed the word of the LORD. We have not been doing what this scroll says we must do."
22 So Hilkiah and the other men went to the newer Mishneh section of Jerusalem to consult with the prophet Huldah. She was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah and grandson of Harhas, the keeper of the Temple wardrobe. 23 She said to them, "The LORD, the God of Israel, has spoken! Go and tell the man who sent you, 24'This is what the LORD says: I will certainly destroy this city and its people. All the curses written in the scroll you have read will come true. 25 For the people of Judah have abandoned me and worshiped pagan gods, and I am very angry with them for everything they have done. My anger will be poured out against this place, and nothing will be able to stop it.'
26 "But go to the king of Judah who sent you to seek the LORD and tell him: 'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says concerning the message you have just heard: 27 You were sorry and humbled yourself before God when you heard what I said against this city and its people. You humbled yourself and tore your clothing in despair and wept before me in repentance. So I have indeed heard you, says the LORD. 28 I will not send the promised disaster against this city and its people until after you have died and been buried in peace. You will not see the disaster I am going to bring on this place.' " So they took her message back to the king.
Josiah's Religious Reforms
29 Then the king summoned all the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem. 30 And the king went up to the Temple of the LORD with all the people of Judah and Jerusalem and the priests and the Levites — all the people from the greatest to the least. There the king read to them the entire Book of the Covenant that had been found in the LORD's Temple. 31 The king took his place of authority beside the pillar and renewed the covenant in the LORD's presence. He pledged to obey the LORD by keeping all his commands, regulations, and laws with all his heart and soul. He promised to obey all the terms of the covenant that were written in the scroll. 32 And he required everyone in Jerusalem and the people of Benjamin to make a similar pledge. As the people of Jerusalem did this, they renewed their covenant with God, the God of their ancestors.
33 So Josiah removed all detestable idols from the entire land of Israel and required everyone to worship the LORD their God. And throughout the rest of his lifetime, they did not turn away from the LORD, the God of their ancestors.
NLT
We can learn much from the example of this young eight-year old leader.
1) He sought the Lord – When we face tough times we need to begin seeking the Lord and we need to continue seeking him when times improve also
2) He purged the land of sin – Sin separates us from God. If we hold onto the sin in our lives, we prevent God from blessing us.
3) He began the process of restoration and repair – Sin leaves our lives in disrepair but with the help of Gods Word and other believers, our lives can be restored and repaired.
4) He pledged to follow the Lord and his pledge was contagious and led others to pledge their lives to the Lord – Change begins with us. As our lives change, others will see the change in us and want the same kind of change in their lives.
What our nation needs today is some Josiah’s. I am pledging to seek God, purge my life of sin, and begin the restoration and repair of my life by pledging to follow what God’s Word says to me. I invite you to join me in this journey.
Next week we will look at how God uses the storms in our lives to wake us up and reveal his will for our lives.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Finding the Ideal Leader (Part 1)
In our study of transformational leadership, we discovered the three acts of transformational leadership. Recognizing the need for change, developing a vision for change, and finally institutionalizing change (Tichy & Devanna, 1990). We then looked at three transformational leaders, Barak Obama, Ronald Reagan, and Jesus and learned lessons from what they did right and wrong. We learned that the institutionalization of change is where most transformational leaders either succeed of fail. To enjoy success, the transformational leader must internalize the need and vision for change in their followers. Transformational leaders fail when they attempt to force changes on individuals.
The greatest challenge an institutionalization of change is overcoming the natural resistance to change. Individuals resist change because
1) Reluctance to loose control
2) Cognitive rigidity
3) Psychological resilience
4) Intolerance to the adjustment period
5) Preference for low levels of stimulation and novelty
6) Reluctance to give up old habits
(Craine, 2007)
Transformational leaders also need to manage the cycle of change and lead their followers through the four cycles of the change cycle
1) The comfort zone
2) The no zone
3) The chasm
4) The go zone
(Oreg, 2003)
Now we are ready to begin the process of finding the ideal leader but first we must define what leadership is, who is a leader, what effective leadership is, how to identify when a leader is effective, the role of culture in leadership, and obstacles to effective leadership.
Leading is defined as “guiding and directing on a course” and as “serving as a channel”. A leader is someone with commanding authority or influence. The leader is the channel who guides and directs individuals down the desired course (Nahavandi, 2006).
Effectiveness in leadership can be defined in many different ways. Fiedler’s Contingency Model defines effectiveness in the terms of group performance. In other words, a leader is seen as effective when the group performs well. However, in contrast, House’s Path-Goal theory considers follower satisfaction. Other researchers who focus on transformational and visionary leadership define effectiveness as successful implementation of large-scale change in an organization (Nahavandi, 2006).
Culture also plays an important role in leadership. A leader may be seen as effective in one culture but not effective in another. According to Trompenaar’s model, cultures can be classified effectively into two dimensions (1) egalitarian-hierarchical, and (2) orientation to the person or to the task. According to this theory leaders, working in a culture leaning toward egalitarianism and people, will be more effective as they focus on removing obstacles and focusing on individual growth. In contrast, cultures that are hierarchical and task oriented, a leader who sets him or herself up as the undisputed boss focusing on rational performance will be seen as more effective (Nahavandi, 2006).
To be effective, leaders must develop an awareness of the culture they are operating in and develop a leadership style that will be effective in that culture. For example, in the United States where individual independence is important an incubator style oriented towards individuals where the leader removes obstacles, works to empower individuals, and focuses on individual growth will be seen as more effective. However, in Asian cultures such as Japan where hierarchy and task orientation are valuable, an Eiffel Tower or authoritarian leadership style focusing on performance will be viewed as more effective. The effective incubator leader will not be effective in Japan where as the Eiffel Tower leader will not be as effective in the United States (Nahavandi, 2006).
In conclusion, we have seen that there is no clear-cut definition of leadership or any tried and true way of determining what leadership style will be effective in any situation. To complicate matters, we have seen that the definition of effectiveness also differs. We have also seen how cultural differences also determine what leadership style will be effective (Nahavandi, 2006).
Looking ahead in our study on how to find the ideal leader, we will be looking at the history of leadership theory. We will also be looking at how the emotional quotient (EQ) and emotional intelligence (EI) affect leadership. We will also look at the big five personality dimensions, locus of control, and type A and type B personality types and leadership. We will conclude by introducing the type C personality type and look at its effectiveness as a leadership style. Next week a history lesson in leadership theory.
References
Craine, K. (2007). Managing the cycle of change. Information Management Journal, September/October2007, pp. 44-50. Retrieved Retrieved January 19, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=13&hid=5&sid=07a78323-a248-4b97-b957-3b989244fa21%40sessionmgr10
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc..
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, pp. 680-693. Retrieved REtrieved January 19, 2010, http://webebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=5&sid=07a78323-a248-4b97-b957-3b989244fa21%40sessionmgr10
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader: The key to global competitiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
The greatest challenge an institutionalization of change is overcoming the natural resistance to change. Individuals resist change because
1) Reluctance to loose control
2) Cognitive rigidity
3) Psychological resilience
4) Intolerance to the adjustment period
5) Preference for low levels of stimulation and novelty
6) Reluctance to give up old habits
(Craine, 2007)
Transformational leaders also need to manage the cycle of change and lead their followers through the four cycles of the change cycle
1) The comfort zone
2) The no zone
3) The chasm
4) The go zone
(Oreg, 2003)
Now we are ready to begin the process of finding the ideal leader but first we must define what leadership is, who is a leader, what effective leadership is, how to identify when a leader is effective, the role of culture in leadership, and obstacles to effective leadership.
Leading is defined as “guiding and directing on a course” and as “serving as a channel”. A leader is someone with commanding authority or influence. The leader is the channel who guides and directs individuals down the desired course (Nahavandi, 2006).
Effectiveness in leadership can be defined in many different ways. Fiedler’s Contingency Model defines effectiveness in the terms of group performance. In other words, a leader is seen as effective when the group performs well. However, in contrast, House’s Path-Goal theory considers follower satisfaction. Other researchers who focus on transformational and visionary leadership define effectiveness as successful implementation of large-scale change in an organization (Nahavandi, 2006).
Culture also plays an important role in leadership. A leader may be seen as effective in one culture but not effective in another. According to Trompenaar’s model, cultures can be classified effectively into two dimensions (1) egalitarian-hierarchical, and (2) orientation to the person or to the task. According to this theory leaders, working in a culture leaning toward egalitarianism and people, will be more effective as they focus on removing obstacles and focusing on individual growth. In contrast, cultures that are hierarchical and task oriented, a leader who sets him or herself up as the undisputed boss focusing on rational performance will be seen as more effective (Nahavandi, 2006).
To be effective, leaders must develop an awareness of the culture they are operating in and develop a leadership style that will be effective in that culture. For example, in the United States where individual independence is important an incubator style oriented towards individuals where the leader removes obstacles, works to empower individuals, and focuses on individual growth will be seen as more effective. However, in Asian cultures such as Japan where hierarchy and task orientation are valuable, an Eiffel Tower or authoritarian leadership style focusing on performance will be viewed as more effective. The effective incubator leader will not be effective in Japan where as the Eiffel Tower leader will not be as effective in the United States (Nahavandi, 2006).
In conclusion, we have seen that there is no clear-cut definition of leadership or any tried and true way of determining what leadership style will be effective in any situation. To complicate matters, we have seen that the definition of effectiveness also differs. We have also seen how cultural differences also determine what leadership style will be effective (Nahavandi, 2006).
Looking ahead in our study on how to find the ideal leader, we will be looking at the history of leadership theory. We will also be looking at how the emotional quotient (EQ) and emotional intelligence (EI) affect leadership. We will also look at the big five personality dimensions, locus of control, and type A and type B personality types and leadership. We will conclude by introducing the type C personality type and look at its effectiveness as a leadership style. Next week a history lesson in leadership theory.
References
Craine, K. (2007). Managing the cycle of change. Information Management Journal, September/October2007, pp. 44-50. Retrieved Retrieved January 19, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=13&hid=5&sid=07a78323-a248-4b97-b957-3b989244fa21%40sessionmgr10
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc..
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, pp. 680-693. Retrieved REtrieved January 19, 2010, http://webebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=5&sid=07a78323-a248-4b97-b957-3b989244fa21%40sessionmgr10
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader: The key to global competitiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Free Markets (Part 4)
In part 3 of our study of free markets, we looked at what happens when there is governmental intervention in prices. We saw that rent controls that are designed to provide affordable housing by keeping rents artificially low result in a shortage of low cost rentals due to a lack of individuals going into the rental business because of the lack of profitability . We also saw that government subsidies designed to keep prices artificially high result in surpluses because there are too many suppliers. In this part we will begin looking at what happens to the market when the government tampers with supply (Sowell, 2007).
In July 2008 the price of crude oil had risen to $126.16 per barrel (InflationData.com, 2010). This caused a spike in the price at the pump of over $4 per gallon. This spike in prices caused individuals to drive and fly less thus affecting the travel industry. To intervene in this matter, President Bush decided to lift the ban on offshore drilling (Eggen & Mufson, 2008).
With this announcement crude oil prices began to decline and hit a low of $31.04 per barrel in February of 2009 (InflationData.com, 2010). It is interesting to note that even though production did not immediately increase after the announcement, just the mention of a possible increase in supply led to a decline in the price. This is because speculators who base their asking price on future supply and demand purchase crude oil. These speculators viewed this announcement as a future increase in supply and thus a reduction in price.
However, on February 22, 2009 President Obama announced that he was reinstating the ban on offshore drilling (LoBianco, 2009). Since this announcement, the price of crude oil has risen to $71.52 as of the date of this posting (Bloomberg.com, 2010). This restriction of supply may not be the only reason for this increase but speculation of a reduction in the future supply of crude because of the announcement caused contributed to the increase. Once again, the speculators who purchase crude oil viewed this as a future reduction in supply and causing an increase the futures price.
Of course we must now ask the question, why the government would want to restrict domestic drilling for crude oil if it will mean an increase in prices. The answer is that due to environmentalism, many see the use of fossil fuels as damaging to the ecosystem. These environmental groups have been able to raise a large amount of cash and thus are able to lobby the Congress to pass legislation restricting crude oil production. However, recent discoveries through leaked emails have placed doubt on the science used to assess damage to the environment due to the use of fossil fuels.
In the next posting on free markets, we will begin to look at the history of the environmental movement. We will look at how Environmentalism has permeated the media, academia, and how the science used to prove the existence of man-made climate change is flawed. This does not mean that we do not have a responsibility to protect the environment; just that scientific study of the issue needs to be free from the politics of the issue so the scientific research can be done without bias.
References
Bloomberg.com (2010, February 8, 2010). Commodity futures. Retrieved February 8, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/?b=0&Intro=intro3
Eggen, D. & Mufson, S. (2008, July 15, 2008). Bush rescinds father's offshore oil ban. Washington Post, , . Retrieved January 27, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071401049.html
InflationData.com (2010). Historical crude oil prices (table). Retrieved Retrieved January 27, 2010, http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp
LoBianco, T. (2009, February 11, 2009). Obama blocks offshore drilling. The Washington Times, , . Retrieved January 27, 2010, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/drilling-ban-revisited/
Sowell, T. (2007). Basic economics (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
In July 2008 the price of crude oil had risen to $126.16 per barrel (InflationData.com, 2010). This caused a spike in the price at the pump of over $4 per gallon. This spike in prices caused individuals to drive and fly less thus affecting the travel industry. To intervene in this matter, President Bush decided to lift the ban on offshore drilling (Eggen & Mufson, 2008).
With this announcement crude oil prices began to decline and hit a low of $31.04 per barrel in February of 2009 (InflationData.com, 2010). It is interesting to note that even though production did not immediately increase after the announcement, just the mention of a possible increase in supply led to a decline in the price. This is because speculators who base their asking price on future supply and demand purchase crude oil. These speculators viewed this announcement as a future increase in supply and thus a reduction in price.
However, on February 22, 2009 President Obama announced that he was reinstating the ban on offshore drilling (LoBianco, 2009). Since this announcement, the price of crude oil has risen to $71.52 as of the date of this posting (Bloomberg.com, 2010). This restriction of supply may not be the only reason for this increase but speculation of a reduction in the future supply of crude because of the announcement caused contributed to the increase. Once again, the speculators who purchase crude oil viewed this as a future reduction in supply and causing an increase the futures price.
Of course we must now ask the question, why the government would want to restrict domestic drilling for crude oil if it will mean an increase in prices. The answer is that due to environmentalism, many see the use of fossil fuels as damaging to the ecosystem. These environmental groups have been able to raise a large amount of cash and thus are able to lobby the Congress to pass legislation restricting crude oil production. However, recent discoveries through leaked emails have placed doubt on the science used to assess damage to the environment due to the use of fossil fuels.
In the next posting on free markets, we will begin to look at the history of the environmental movement. We will look at how Environmentalism has permeated the media, academia, and how the science used to prove the existence of man-made climate change is flawed. This does not mean that we do not have a responsibility to protect the environment; just that scientific study of the issue needs to be free from the politics of the issue so the scientific research can be done without bias.
References
Bloomberg.com (2010, February 8, 2010). Commodity futures. Retrieved February 8, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/?b=0&Intro=intro3
Eggen, D. & Mufson, S. (2008, July 15, 2008). Bush rescinds father's offshore oil ban. Washington Post, , . Retrieved January 27, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071401049.html
InflationData.com (2010). Historical crude oil prices (table). Retrieved Retrieved January 27, 2010, http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp
LoBianco, T. (2009, February 11, 2009). Obama blocks offshore drilling. The Washington Times, , . Retrieved January 27, 2010, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/drilling-ban-revisited/
Sowell, T. (2007). Basic economics (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
The $3,000 Trojan Horse
President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address February 27. The speech was a smorgasbord of ideas but in this commentary I want to focus on one item in particular, the proposed $3,000 tax credit to businesses who hire new employees. A $3,000 tax credit may sound good to a struggling small business but this tax cut is actually a Trojan horse and does more damage than good.
Why do businesses hire employees? Either business owners hire employees to do a job they do not know how to do such as hiring an accountant, engineer, or some other specialized profession or a job they do not have time to do. Business owners should never hire someone simply to get a tax credit unless the tax credit covers the entire cost of hiring that employee.
A $3,000 tax credit would hardly cover the cost of hiring someone when you take into account the total cost involved in hiring someone. Not only does a business owner have to pay their employees salary but they also have other expenses (e.g. payroll taxes, benefits, worker’s comp insurance, social security matching).
The $3,000 tax credit is a joke for it is asking employers to hire someone they do not need, pay these unnecessary employees a salary along with benefits, match their social security withholding, payroll taxes, and worker’s comp. insurance for a measly $3,000. I urge business owners not to give into the temptation to hire solely to get a tax credit.
Instead of a gimmicky tax credit, our government needs to offer across the board tax cuts to spur economic activity. These tax cuts will put additional discretionary income into the hands of consumers. These consumers will spend this money at businesses that will need to expand and hire additional employees to keep up with increasing demand. These newly hired employees will go off the unemployment rolls and have additional income to spend thus increasing demand even more. The tax cuts are actually not cuts at all but investments in the private sector of our economy and the government receives a return on investment via increased tax revenues spurred by increased business activity and profits.
This method of increasing economic activity through tax cuts has worked three times in our history. JFK did it in the 1960’s leading the country into a decade of economic expansion. Ronald Reagan did it in the 1980’s bringing us out of the stagflation of the late 70’s. President George W. Bush did it in the 2000’s bringing us out of the dotcom bubble and the recession caused by the 9/11 attacks. This type of incentive program using tax cuts has a proven track record and is the answer to this recession as well.
However, instead of tax cuts, the administration seems determined to increase spending and taxes in the hope this will increase economic activity and lead to recovery. In fact, unless the congress does something to prevent it, we are facing the largest tax increase in our nation’s history at the end of 2010. Next week we will look at these pending tax increases.
Why do businesses hire employees? Either business owners hire employees to do a job they do not know how to do such as hiring an accountant, engineer, or some other specialized profession or a job they do not have time to do. Business owners should never hire someone simply to get a tax credit unless the tax credit covers the entire cost of hiring that employee.
A $3,000 tax credit would hardly cover the cost of hiring someone when you take into account the total cost involved in hiring someone. Not only does a business owner have to pay their employees salary but they also have other expenses (e.g. payroll taxes, benefits, worker’s comp insurance, social security matching).
The $3,000 tax credit is a joke for it is asking employers to hire someone they do not need, pay these unnecessary employees a salary along with benefits, match their social security withholding, payroll taxes, and worker’s comp. insurance for a measly $3,000. I urge business owners not to give into the temptation to hire solely to get a tax credit.
Instead of a gimmicky tax credit, our government needs to offer across the board tax cuts to spur economic activity. These tax cuts will put additional discretionary income into the hands of consumers. These consumers will spend this money at businesses that will need to expand and hire additional employees to keep up with increasing demand. These newly hired employees will go off the unemployment rolls and have additional income to spend thus increasing demand even more. The tax cuts are actually not cuts at all but investments in the private sector of our economy and the government receives a return on investment via increased tax revenues spurred by increased business activity and profits.
This method of increasing economic activity through tax cuts has worked three times in our history. JFK did it in the 1960’s leading the country into a decade of economic expansion. Ronald Reagan did it in the 1980’s bringing us out of the stagflation of the late 70’s. President George W. Bush did it in the 2000’s bringing us out of the dotcom bubble and the recession caused by the 9/11 attacks. This type of incentive program using tax cuts has a proven track record and is the answer to this recession as well.
However, instead of tax cuts, the administration seems determined to increase spending and taxes in the hope this will increase economic activity and lead to recovery. In fact, unless the congress does something to prevent it, we are facing the largest tax increase in our nation’s history at the end of 2010. Next week we will look at these pending tax increases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)