Discussion Guide for Stewardship

Choosing Service Over Self-Interest
by Peter Block

Find out more about this book...

First, what is Stewardship?

From the Preface of Stewardship:
"Stewardship means to hold something in trust for another. It was a term originally used to protect a kingdom while those rightfully in charge were away, or, more often, to govern for the sake of an underage king. Today the underage king is the next generation." Stewardship is described by Peter Block as the willingness to be accountable for the well being of the larger organization by operating in service, rather than in control, of those around us. In order to practice stewardship in an organization we must look carefully at distribution of power, purpose, and rewards in the organization.

If Stewardship is About Service, What Does it Mean to "Work in The Service of Others"?

Again, from the Preface of Stewardship, authentic service is experienced when:
There is a balance of power: People act on their own decisions and choices and expect to be held accountable for their own choices;
The primary commitment is to the larger organization or community rather than to an individual worker or a small team;
Each person helps to define the purpose of the organization and what kind of culture it will support in order to achieve its mission; and
Rewards and resources are evenly distributed throughout all levels of the organization

How is This Idea of Service Different?

Stewardship is not about being forced to serve or being kept under watchful eye to control your actions. True service is not a product of complying with rules and policies. If you've ever volunteered to do something at a community organization, a church, a synagogue or mosque it is likely you performed that service not because someone told you to do it. Your service came from the heart. You wanted to care and understood the purpose or mission of the project so that acting on your desires was obvious and effortless. When you were done with your act of service, you didn't feel "used" or "abused". You didn't complain to someone about why you were asked to do anything. Your work seemed to be just a natural part of wanting to do what is right for that organization.

If ever you've been "served" at a fast food place and felt that someone was just going through the motions of "being nice" or "being courteous" you'll know that worker was not really interested in "serving" you. They were putting on an act. They were following rules. It didn't come from the heart. They probably didn't want to be there at all and they most likely go home at the end of a day wondering why they put up with their work place or their boss.

Stewardship
Managers, Supervisors, and Staff Working Together

Under an old and outdated control paradigm (see page ?) for organizations, many work places of the past subscribed to a value system that communicated to employees the following three ideas:

You will obey or else! In other words disagreement with those above is interpreted as "you're not a team player."
Watching is more valuable than doing. This means it's better to be a manager than to be line staff doing the work.
In the event of breakdown or failure, try harder. When things need to be fixed, new ideas are not welcomed here.

DISCUSSION POINTS:

  • Have you ever felt that you had to buy into these three values as part of the process of working somewhere? What did this feel like?
  • What are the limits of an organization like this? Why is it that these organizations are not surviving today's fast pace of change?
  • If an organization can follow the four ingredients of authentic service as listed above, what kind of an organization might that be? What would be hardest to do? Which of these key ingredients of authentic service do you feel your organization already demonstrates?
Under What Paradigm Would You Want to Work?

The following characteristics summarize the key differences between two different paradigms or value systems and models that can operate within a work place. Take a moment to look at the various qualities of the two paradigms and use discussion questions below for dialogue.

ADAPTED FROM: The Horizontal Revolution: Reengineering Your Organization Through Teams, by Morris A. Graham and Melvin LeBaron. Jossey Bass Publishers, 1994.

DISCUSSION POINTS:
  • What different skills do you feel each paradigm requires of management and staff?
  • What questions must staff and management be willing to ask of themselves in order to inspire commitment?
  • What personal actions will you take to create a work place that creates commitment?
The Challenges of Managing Through Governance
"We cannot be stewards of an institution and expect someone else to take care of us."

Under the old paradigm of "control", managers worked hard to get employees to do what they were told. The promise was that "if you do what I say, you won't get in trouble". The outcome of this is that it placed managers and staff in a role of a parent telling a child what to do. On the one hand, it was stifling. On the other, it was safe. If you did as you were told and something didn't go right--there was no need to worry since it was basically management's fault for asking you to do it in the first place.

Organizations today realize that the complexity of the work that must get done requires every worker to bring their full capabilities to the workplace. You cannot leave any part of your brain in the parking lot before walking in the door. If you do, everyone loses out on the talent, skills, insight and experience that is uniquely yours alone. Instead of trying to control workers, progressive organizations search for a way to seek a commitment from workers. At the core of any commitment between people is a relationship. At the very least, workers and supervisors must develop a true partnership instead of relating to one another as parent and child.

Since most of us have not established a business on our own, we may not be familiar with what a true business partnership requires. Peter Block suggests that a true partnership exists if these conditions are present:

Co-creation of Purpose. Staff, supervisors, customers and other stakeholders in the organization must have a say in what kind of an organization we will co-create. That means that it is not up to any one group of people to say how we will live out our Mission. It's everyone's responsibility to take an active role in building the community.

The Right to Say No. If someone cannot voice his or her differences with another person, then there is no true partnership. Block says, "If we cannot say no, then saying yes has no meaning. There are of course, limits on this. In any community there will always be different levels of authority. The boss will have 51 percent, the subordinates 49 percent...Partnership does not mean that you always get what you want. It means you may lose your argument, but you never lose your voice" (page 30).

Joint Accountability. In a partnership, each person must have responsibility for their current situation and their future. A boss is not responsible for morale. A boss is not responsible for your personal happiness. A boss is not responsible for your career. Equally important---a worker is not responsible for a boss's self esteem. A worker is not responsible for a boss's promotion. Each person must take responsibility for the success or failure of their own organization. Even the culture of an organization cannot be placed at the feet of management...it takes the cooperation of staff to make a bad or good work place environment.

Absolute Honesty. Good parenting often requires that we spare a child from the truth for their own good. The parent uses their judgment for what a child needs to know and when. In a partnership of equals, not telling the truth is an act of betrayal. If honesty prevails people experience much less vulnerability and are enabled to act on what is known. Honesty never includes being brutal with one another. It just means if you have concerns about someone, a decision, an event or experience it is dealt with the people directly involved.

No Abdication. Every one has experienced a situation where the reaction to a complaint or a concern on the part of one person toward another leads to a breakdown in the relationship. Sometimes there is emotional withdrawal... "If you think this is so easy, you do it". Whenever we move from a position of dominance to one of equality we are in danger of facing withdrawal. In a true partnership the contact is constant no matter what.

Does this mean we never need bosses if we're going to be partners?
No. People may have special responsibilities throughout an organization or they may have unique areas of expertise that are required for key decisions. Bosses are about providing clarity---not about keeping order or control, however. Remember: "Stewardship is the willingness to hold power, without using reward and punishment and directive authority to get things done."

DISCUSSION POINTS:
Do you feel that true partnerships can exist your organization? Why or why not?
What changes would you see in your organization if partnerships could become a natural part of your work relationships?

What do employees have to give up if a supervisor no longer takes on the role of parent?
In the book Stewardship, Peter Block closes with a chapter called Cynics, Victims and Bystanders. He tells us that cynics are skeptical that the organization can change. They've "been there, done that" and no longer have faith in changing the organization. Cynics have two cousins: the victim and the bystander. Victims tell us that they do not have the power to make the changes required within the organization to fulfill its mission.

"Power is what victims want, and we are the ones they want it from. Victims believe that others, often us, hold the answer to their helplessness. If they were just given more power, or if our behavior would change in some way, then they would begin to take responsibility...Victims do not want a change in the governance system, they just want a change in who governs."

According to Block, bystanders are those who enter into the game withholding commitment. They want proof that stewardship as a management strategy will work. In the end, being a bystander is a wish for certainty and safety so that we don't have to get hurt trying something new.

DISCUSSION POINTS:
What is it that we need as a team in order to feel good about risking new ways of working together?
What should it mean that we each made the choice to work in our organization over any other work place?
How will we hold ourselves accountable to living up to the risk of working together as partners?

Control Paradigm Commitment Paradigm
Elicits compliance Engenders commitment
Believes supervision is pivotal to organizational successes Believes education is pivotal to organizational successes
Focuses on hierarchy Focuses on customers
Has bias for functional units Has bias for cross-functional teams
Manages by rules and policy Manages by principle
Favors audit and enforcement in order to keep employees focused Favors the learning process for helping employees stay focused
Believes in selective information exchange among staff Believes in open dialogue
Believes bosses should make decisions alone Believes workers and bosses together should make decisions
Emphasizes ends justifying the means Emphasizes the need for balance between ends and means
Encourages emphasis on work above all else Encourages balance between work and personal life
Rewards compliance and loyalty Rewards innovation and personal growth

• Why Start a Reading Group
• What is Bussiness Literacy?
• How To Start a Reading Group
• 10 Tips For Success
• Discussion Guides