This is somewhat of a follow-up post to my post a few days ago which raised the question from Robert Greenleaf about the need to be both good and bad in some ways to enjoy life to the full and comprehend its meaning. I didn’t get much response to that post so I’m continuing my reflections on what I think Greenleaf is going after in some of his statements. I’m going to use a few more of Greenleaf’s quotes here – quotes that focus on responsibility.
This quote is almost too bothersome and convicting to type:
“Responsibility is a difficult thing to talk about. it is often seen as that which others should have more of. Few of us think of ourselves as irresponsible; the admission would be too devastating. We all do pretty well at rationalizing our own acts of commission and omission that bear on responsibility. (Servant Leadership, 292-293)
Here’s how Greenleaf defines responsibility:
Most definitions of responsibility imply conformity with conventional expectations, conventional morality, or being deterred by consideration of known sanctions or consequences. Such definitions imply that the rules and penalties are all set and the responsible person is one who carefully stays within bounds. I prefer not to use the word responsibility to mean conformity to expectations (although a sensible person always does some of that). Rather I think of responsibility as beginning with a concern for self, to receive that inward growth that gives serenity of spirit without which someone cannot truly say, “I am free.” (italics mine, 293)
What Greenleaf calls being “bad” sometimes is really is a way of saying that to enjoy life and even understand and comprehend meaning in life, you sometimes need to be a non-conformist. Sometimes you have to break the rules and go a different direction than the stream’s current. We need to view responsibility in terms of preserving spirit and freedom and not in terms of conformity.
A culture that views responsibility (and I would add the term competence) only in terms of conformity and duty pretty much generates bureaucracy and here’s some awesome Greenleaf reflections on the damaging nature of bureaucracies:
Bureaucracy is defined as a system that has become narrow, rigid, and formal, depends on precedent, and lacks initiative and resourcefulness – a pretty bad state of affairs. It is the feet of clay that seem to encumber everything that is organized. As I see it, this is the way all institutions tend to become as they grow old, large, or respectable……..They may do some good in the world; in fact, they are all we have. But they still tend to become bureaucracies–given size, age, and respectability. Because we need the good they do, we tend to overlook the harm done because they are bureaucracies. (294)
What kind of responsibility do you nurture in your own context and environment?
Do you agree with Greenleaf? How do you avoid perpetuating bureaucracy?
