#they can have an equal partnership without that D/s power exchange | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thepassivewitness · 7 years

Text

Who Am I? (I’m Jean Valjean!) ... sorry .... another earworm.

Subtitle: “Where’s my dinner? One of the great master’s indeed” (aka: I am not a Master or a Dominant. I am submissive, weak, disconnected and hollow … clearly.)

I have spent the past few days sifting in reflection in some of the thoughts and questions I had posed to me both recently and over the past few months.

“How do you identify?”

I have myself listed as ‘Master’ and with that comes a presumption by many of an equally many different envisionments of what that is supposed to be like.

I have compromised and adjusted my expectations, wants, desires and needs in past in favour of ensuring my partner is able, healthy and the relationship itself with the human I have been with was paramount, even above my own self at times. For me during those times the person I have chosen to commit myself to and the relationship we have had has been far greater a priority than roles or black and white lines of expectation defined by one title or another.

The living of my life with my partner and my partner herself were the priority. The rest can be added or taken away. I have lived in both vanilla and non-vanilla relationships alike, with both older and younger partners.

I have thrown out the expectations or demands of my place replacing it with the basic core fact … I was in a relationship with the person I was committed to. What and where she was, could be, was going to and trying to keep us healthy, safe, secure and together were the priorities, not the power dynamic, the kink, any games or roles. The PERSON was the priority.

Through all of that, however, there have been some basics of the who and the what that I am, regardless of title.

As I have reflected deeply over the past several days, these are my thoughts. I take my responsibility of taking care of my partner to heart.

I am both complex and bewilderingly simple, so the job of trying to understand me is equally complex and bewilderingly simple.

The fact that I don’t ‘demand’ without compromise that my partner be exactly as and how I want her to be clearly makes me powerless … at least to those who lose sight of some of the basics.

First … if I have a partner and I am with my partner - I am WITH my PARTNER! SHE is my world, and my everything. That is ultimately what I expect of her where I am in her life, so for me that is nothing short of paramount for my investment in kind.

With the presumption that anyone in my position is Neanderthal like and the disconnection from reality that the person with whom I share myself is ‘nothing’ is beyond nauseating to me.

For me, it is a power exchange but also for me it is a partnership. It is a completion of two parts meshing and becoming ‘the consummate couple’ … that couple that everyone wants to be and to have. The ideal.

I open doors for my partner. I pull out the chair for her to sit in. I walk between her and the road or between potential hurt or harm. I hold her close. I seat belt my partner in and I make sure she is safe and secure before we drive away. I tend to ‘order for the lady’. I adore her being my lady as well as my partner, or the other many titles that may apply to her if anyone were to capture here in a snapshot of a second’s view, be it sub, slave, little, lady, woman, slut, whore, snob, bitch … whatever it may be at that second, we are never any one specific thing exclusively, though the overall package of a person tends to allow us to be primarily something more than another thing. It is not because I am submitting to her, nor is it because she is incapable of doing these things for herself. I am not, and she is. I do it because I am a bit old school and because of my role in her life and hers in mine.

I am not poly. I don’t have the heart for it. I have been the other man too many times and I have been deemed ‘disposable’ in those past triads. I do not judge nor hold ill vision or will toward those who do live that life, I just know I do not have the strength or depth to be able to endure that environment. I am far too greedy for my partner to be able to do that. That is not to say I don’t date, but once the commitment is made … that’s it.

I know my own self worth and my value. I know that I have to offer and give and I know it is worthy of the right person to share that with, where I am not a substandard priority or a mere option, but where I am *THE* priority in her life and where we are the nucleus to our lives and in the midst of the world around us.

I have heard bewilderment at the thought that, being a dominant person, I should be single and looking. That I should be able to have anyone I so desire and should not be single. Like it is a presumption of failure of the very title “Dominant” in EVERY way that makes it such that I am single and unpartnered.

I have suffered the affliction of the ‘kid in a candy store’, seeing everything, wanting to grab everything and stuffing myself in an ignorance of gluttony that would make the most steadfast person sick at the sight, certainly as I reflect back on my earliest phases of this life I know that *I* feel ill at the reflection, and thankful for the development of self.

We have a planet with several BILLION people on it, pretty much equal in its division of the genders … so the adage of ‘plenty of fish in the sea’ would seem to hold accurate, but the fact is that there is a filtering system that we all have and use. We have checklists and wants, needs and desires that sift and strain the masses down to select few.

That is just the general living of life filters, though far from inconsequential given the need to actually LIVE life with the person you are with after the few seconds, minutes or hours of passion and desire have passed. The fact is, again … for ME … the whole package is an imperative.

I am intense … so much so that it is one of my weaknesses as much as it is a strength. It is overpowering and my ability to overwhelm is notable. It has been the cost of some potential matches over the years gone by.

I am a control freak. I have a need to know everything about my partner, have my hand in her life in some way, even if only to be present from afar and have her checking in with me. It is not because she is unable or incompetent. It is because of the want to have that power exchange to have our places to and for one another regardless of where we are geographically. With that said, I am also compromising. I listen and feel, I take in and consider her thoughts, views, feelings and experiences.

This is probably the most accurate area to question the designation of ‘Master’ vs. ‘Dominant’ vs. ‘Top’.

I adore having the absolutes of a TPE in a 24/7 living of this life with a partner that fits, meshes, matches and with whom both are invested exclusively in one another. There is the first designator. BUT … yes that ugly word that should be four letters instead of three … I am also realistic. I am not weak, but rather aware, cautious, dare I say even possessing wisdom. I am flexible on those demands where a partner is concerned because I am aware of the fact that the person I am with …. IS A HUMAN!

She may not be able to be in places from one time to another, or her stage of development may not be anywhere near the various levels of the abyss that I am able to descend to. And if someone is not wanting, willing or able to go to a place, I am NOT going to force someone to be in a place they don’t want to be … especially including being by my side.

I don’t want someone who doesn’t want to be with me and who doesn’t want me. Why would I want to have something so toxic filling our lives with broken acid of distain?

So as I allow flexibility in the relationship to take on it’s own life and form, supposedly I diminish myself in the designation and the definition. The world we live in today is far from anything like we have seen in past. In past should someone complain or make accusation, it carried a punch and in rare cases it held devastating results – with good reason as typically only the ugliest of actions and disregard for humans was deemed criminal.

Today, even just the complaint is sufficient to destroy a life, founded or not. Any whisper of ill will or harassing action is sufficient to remove employment, ostracize a person from family, friends and community, and has a power infused such as we have not seen, potentially ever. That is both good and bad. So to keep a very solid eye on the reality bubble and to recognize that you are dealing with actual human beings in this, actual people, is an essential part to my being. I am keenly aware of this in today’s world and society, and even more I work exceptionally hard to keep in tune with the person whom I would have as my partner.

I still have my expectations, I still have my wants and needs and I still drive toward those. I still have my tolerances and limits where ‘enough is enough’, where the sacrifice of self for the well being of my partner becomes simply …. Too much. Where the self sacrifice and destruction is valueless and the worth of me is so diminished that the only option is to walk away. That is not to say that there is not a lot that goes on between the points of the summit of “IT” and the base of “good luck to you”, but the ability to recognize that my partner is in a different place and deciding if the path she is on is close enough to me and if we value each other is one of the cornerstones to my foundation …. And protection of both the person I am taking responsibility for … and myself!

That is obviously weak and giving up my power. After all, ME BIG D (or M) you little puny s (or …. still s).

Clearly.

Building on that, I am constantly needing to know her thoughts, feelings, insights, views, spirit and body. If I am not in tune with her, then how can I know where WE are and how to manage the lives we have chosen to live together.

It is suffocating for many and difficult at times, but the connection and bond that comes from that when it is right … that is beyond measure.

I am a romantic. I am a HOPELESS romantic. I have a love and a passion for the partner whom I invest myself into to the depths and heights far beyond what can be measured. I love to sing to her (sometimes badly). I love to dance with her, at home, on a dance floor or in the middle of Walmart, Safeway, McDonalds … it doesn’t matter … without apology. I love the connection of dancing with my partner and who cares who thinks what. I do not live my life for others. I live my life for myself and the partner in my life.

I am very, VERY tactile and PDA is simply a part of life if you were to get stuck with me as my partner. I have NO issue and make absolutely NO APOLOGY for kissing and loving the woman who would be by my side and sharing my life. As private a man as I may be, I will love letting the entire Universe know what an amazing find I have and how spectacular we are together at every moment I can. With tact, with refinement, with total abandon at times, but never with apology.

That is not to say that I don’t maintain a respect for those who are around myself and my partner, those who have chosen a life very different from that which we would share together. That is not to say that we give up our dynamic nor our life choice. We just adjust it … we tailor how we present that with one another.

“I am going to head over to the bathroom for a few minutes if that’s okay’ vs. ‘Sir, may I please go to the bathroom’ …. The dynamic is still present, we are still in touch with where one another is, I know where she is and that she is safe, she knows I am there waiting for her and we are still intact. Small gestures, small movements, small phraseologies … and we are still U/us. But that is an US thing …. Exclusive to US.

That is intimate.

I don’t have all the answers all the time. There are times when I don’t know. I am not omnipotent and I do NOT know it all or know everything. Anyone who says they do … they would be someone I would be extremely wary of and likely try and avoid.

There are times when in all my demands for control and TPE, I WILL GET IT WRONG! I *WILL* make mistakes. I can guarantee that I will rip myself apart for any error far more than anyone or anything else ever could should those things happen.

There are times when I am weak and collapsed. There are times when I sob uncontrollably. When I am near complete and utter destruction or when all my strength and resolve have been ripped from me.

I am human. I am not super human and I am not an automaton. I have learned over the years that being male means that I am expected to not show weakness, not show emotions, not be human, so I keep those things to myself or if I have a partner, then I trust them.

I, like anyone else, love to be held during those times, to have someone watching my back when I am collapsed in a heap on the ground and unable to move, fighting to regain my strength to stand once again. Is it any wonder I am selective as to whom I allow to come that close to me, let alone to stay? I am rough, sadistic and primal. In this lifestyle or life choice, it is deemed abuse to the outside eye. For me and with my partner, it is not pain for pain sake. I find arousal in having that with the RIGHT woman. I do not do casual. It is not part of my DNA. I need to have the trust, the bond and the connection to go down those roads with a person. It is a very, VERY intimate thing that I share and I don’t do open, casual or NSA. As part of the paradox I am also gentle, tender, kind and giving. It is a mix. I am a mix. Neither complex nor simple, yet both inclusive with all the spectrum in between.

I can appreciate having and sharing the delights of rope or bindings, wax or floggers, crops or clothespins just to name a few … and were I may find some erotic, dare I say perverse, delights in these and the sadomasochistic realms, hurting my partner may be something we share … but I would never HARM my partner if I were able to ever avoid that.

As one lesson of past stated … ‘you lose your partner, you lose yourself!’ and that is a lesson that has stayed with me for decades.

I come from a once upon a time when the community was singular and whole. Where we were not as fractured as we are now. Where we had and held to the understanding that whatever aspects of this life choice or lifestyle may be appealing to another person, if it was not for us as individuals then that was fine. Where it may turn me pale at the thought or leave me unable to even conceive of living a life the way the other person or people do, that … was … FINE! If it made that person and/or the people they were with happy, and it was not causing actual harm … then who the HELL am *I* to judge someone else? I have neither the right nor would I … DO I want it.

As fractured and multi-celled as our communities are now, I still hold to that basic tenant and it saddens me to see some of the posturing, infighting or conflict where none existed before. On the other hand one of the benefits is that there is increased selection and opportunity to enjoy company of others on a fairly regular basis.

I have an undeniable draw toward a younger partner. It is not a profound prerequisite, but I know myself to know the draw exists given the right woman and it is powerful. I love living my life with someone younger than myself. I still have many things I love doing and things I still want to do. As much as I LOVE curling up in bed for prolonged periods of time, watching Netflix or a movie marathon or a TV series binge watch, playing chess, crib, board games or enjoying cooking in the kitchen or enjoying the fireplace with the right person, I still love jogging, I want to ski, a want to travel, fly, climb some mountain summits (with or without the help of a tram between base and that summit), skating, and sharing adventures of all kinds. I love the enjoyment of sharing firsts, be it mutual or exclusive to either one of us. I love enjoying the delights of her joys and taking on her sorrows.

Those things clearly compromise my position of dominance and power.

I am tactile beyond measure. I ache for my partner’s touch constantly. I have had moments of pure wonder, non-sexual, where the mere touch of my partner has been universe defining and soul moving. The weakness of this is obvious in the erosion of the very strength that makes or defines me as a dominant person, certainly it destroys any semblance of the title “Master”.

I once read a quote saying something like “A submissive needs to be wanted. A Dominant needs to be NEEDED!”, and that is certainly part of my core being as well.

I typically refer back to a basic checklist for being involved or in a place. Am I wanted, Am I needed, Am I loved, Am I valued, Am I doing any good? If the answer is no to all of those things, I will be out of there as best as I am able as soon as I am capable. It is a fairly good checklist that can help guide me in potential relationships as well as life.

I am a militant non-smoker and an absolute drug free zone. I have allergies to cats, some to horses and a little less to feathers but I love the critters very much despite those limitations.

I have scars, inside and out. I have suffered losses as anyone who lives long enough will have to suffer through. These are my own and I try to wear them internally and privately, though with my partner there are no secrets, no walls, no barriers … not between us.

I am staunch, stubborn and unmoving in many areas, yet open minded, flexible and fluid where able, often looking to see what others may see and often debate and try and consider the devil’s advocate’s position. I want things my way but I also want to make sure my partner is healthy and happy, fulfilled by me and with me as much as the life that surrounds us as best as we are able.

I adjust myself to what and where my partner is, where she is able to be and where her growth takes her. At times that has taken her on a path away from me, obviously, as I am single.

I am fiercely private, possessive, greedy, and territorial, especially where my partner is concerned.

I am refined to a degree, even snob like at times, yet am aware of the times I have been living in poverty, homeless and recognize I am only existing now through the graces of others kindnesses and support in decades past. I am not particularly religious, but I am spiritual. I am reserved and careful yet with the right people and/or partner I am wide open.

I am unshockable and can see different aspects, even arousal, to some very dark places, while still plunging with absolute delight and relishing the lightest of places as well.

You add all these to the filters and suddenly it changes from plenty of fish in the sea to needle in a haystack.

I am that I am that I am. I exist. I struggle, I feel, I cry, I smile, I laugh, scream, fear, breathe …. Live.

Yet another series of confirming qualities that clearly delineate me as being unworthy of the title “Dominant”, let alone “Master”. So with all that, clearly my definition of self is horrifically erroneous.

So. Who I am: - Sadist - Daddy - Top - Dominant - Predator - Stuck up - Asshole - Weak - Submissive - A pushover - Undefined - Master? ….. pfft.

Every person will have their own take on who I am, what I am and how I am made depending on what aspect they look at me from and what facets they are allowed to see.

A master of none is no master indeed. Counterpoint, however, is in the definition by itself.

The mastery of self, of keeping an even eye and as best as possible of heart and the life inclusive of those of importance and value, of working and meshing with a partner, of guiding and living up to the responsibilities of the job and role I have signed up for, of considering and working with my partner …. That, one could argue, IS the definition of Mastery.

I chose that definition knowing the overall self of me. I am not overt in my declaration, with exception to a select few, but it is there and exists none the less.

This is MY definition of self. This does NOT apply to ANYONE else. Anyone else’s definitions still apply for themselves as they so see fit. It is their right and their life. It is not my place to judge nor would I want it.

I am me, and for that I protect myself and those dearest to me, while at the same time not apologizing.

The definition of self continues, but the place I note fits in a select place with select persons.

Oh … and I am verbose (at times).

This is a glimpse of who I am. Certainly it is not the whole, but it is a snapshot. And I am far from perfect.

I am a paradox incarnate. I am a mix.

I know that I am not an easy man to live with, let alone be partnered with. At least if it is the wrong person, but that I suspect applies to anyone and everyone who may be mismatched. But still, it is not as easy as it could be, for certain. So where does the definition fit and work and where does it not?

To each their own.

All I can say is that this is some of how I am defined in, of, and by myself. And for each of us that is ultimately the only thing we can be ... defined by ourselves.

0 notes

she-shall-conquer · 7 years

Text

Week 2: The 4 Eras of Leadership & the Church Tag-a-long

Daft, R. (2017). The Leadership Experience (7th ed., pp. Chapter 2). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

At some point in my life, the time might come to nail my “95 Thesis” to the proverbial door of the charismatic church, however, that day is not (I repeat, not) today. Also, it wouldn’t really count for anything because I’m a woman, right? Either way, in any form of organisation, there will always be strengths and flaws. There should also be a goal of maximising strengths and minimising weaknesses. With this understanding, as well as the fact that the church is a form of organisation, for the reasons that it is a collective of people with a common goal or objective – and just like any other company, not everyone completely understands or is working towards this goal or set of goals.

The four era’s of leadership are what was covered this week in the leadership lecture and follow the cultural and societal understanding of what relationships should be in a workplace, which is all very heavily influenced by research being done at the time. I aim to briefly summarise key factors of each era and point out how the church has followed the notion (though in some cases in a delayed fashion) and how the church could benefit from moving along into the current era of leadership as it fits more within the doctrine and values of the Christian faith. As far as organisational experience goes, the church is an organisation where I have been both extremely involved and barely there in all kinds and manner of churches and therefore my experience with it is a resource I can draw upon to reflect on these theories.

Era 1: Maybe He’s Born With It, Maybe It’s Lazy Thinking.

Era 1 is rife with the kind of leadership theories that now circulate amongst the common man, theories that leaders have particular traits (a set of personality characteristics that remain stable over time) that make them good leaders, be it the magnetic personalities, the inspiring orators, the confident or gregarious socialites, the social climbers, or the accolade trophy-hunters. In our own minds, we most likely have reflected on a particular authority in our lives and deemed them a good or bad leader (and perhaps have later on become disillusioned). In terms of singular leaders that have been able to mobilise large groups of people through charismatic tendencies and emotional or moral appeals, one would call to mind the preachers of the 17th through 19th century. Charismatic leaders would include Martin Luther who pioneered the Protestant Reformation, challenging the most powerful organisation of the time (the Roman Catholic Church); John and Charles Wesley, who traveled around preaching to the masses in the Methodist Revival as well as George Whitfield who lead the Great Revival in America; 19th century had the Third Great Awakening with the likes of D. L. Moody, William Booth, and Charles Spurgeon, all of these men are revered, well-known, and frequently quoted to this day. They lead big movements, where people’s lives were impacted and forever changed.

However in the 20th century moving forward, the dangers of charismatic leadership was evidenced and shocked the masses in cases such as Hitler in Nazi Germany, Stalin in Communist Russia, and all the other tyranny of dictatorship. Mega-churches and celebrity pastors began to spring up, more and more emulating the celebrity lifestyle of Hollywood. More information was accessible which meant that big name preachers hosting evangelist crusades were caught out for scamming their congregants, money scandals were more public, as were moral failures. And while for the most part, there are many mega-churches that are decently run, the great man theory can be traced to the smallest of churches, where the leaders are not to be questioned, but rather their vision is to be championed and followed without question, unfortunately. Another problem is that one of the characteristics believed to be particular leaders was being male, as has been the case for centuries of the Western civilisation’s belief, however as Era 2’s contingency theories so aptly highlight, there may be certain cases in a church context where a woman is the best person to lead, On the surface level, this seems contrary to biblical teachings, but once cultural factors are taken into consideration, as well as context and understanding the heart and nature of decisions made and advice was given, it is not necessarily country to Scriptural Doctrine for women to be in positions of leadership (unless of course, they really aren’t allowed to be as near to God, or hear from Him, or something of that nature). Looking at the theories of good followership, it is easy to see how charismatic leadership without a good understanding of relational necessity can be a poison of its own – the followers are not encouraged to think critically which already puts the organisation at a disadvantage, as well as that when the leader does make a significant mistake, which will most likely happen, followers, are forced to rationalise or justify the mistake or to come to the conclusion that this pastor is not a leader because he has acted contrary to the characteristics of a leader.

Era 2: Checkboxes and Metal Cages

Era 2 of leadership is comprised of far more precise procedures, where as much as there is talk of people oriented versus task oriented, people, in this era, are a task and must be measured in distance and handled theoretically. The two main themes to emerge from this era are the behaviour theories and the contingency theories. The behaviour theories are evidenced in such as the Leader-Member Exchange theory (LMX) where a unique relationship should be created with each follower, where an orientation must be selected between autocratic or democratic, boss-centric or subordinate-centric, as well as the dimensions of fit, where the contingency must be managed by the appropriate style of leadership. The aim of relational engagement is to direct, control and ultimately manage behaviour. What perhaps leaders still do not completely fully comprehend is that there needs to be room for one leader to respond in different styles to different people in different situations. I grew up in a church culture where there was a great deal of encouragement for leaders to form relationships with new members in an effort to reduce church turnover. This included the then innocent “coffee” which has now become a euphemism for rebuke, berating, voicing disapproval. I grew up in an era where welcome teams were sent out and instructed to speak to new people, and as a result, I have found a million and one ways to ask teenagers about school (what are you studying? what is your favourite subject? what is your favourite part about that subject? what do you want to do after school? where have you thought about studying? what extra-murals do you do? what subjects are you going to choose in grade 10?).

Nothing good happens over forced conversation, but the mission or task was relationships, and so structures and systems were established to force relationships, which as can be imagined never became real friendships, as can be imagined. Building relationships is a good thing, but building relationships out of duty or obligation often is more damaging than helpful because there is little to no authenticity or genuine interest in the relationship. In fact, both task-oriented leadership and people oriented leadership are necessary, they’re not opposites, they’re dimensions and each serves their own role in when they are useful. There needs to be a boss-centric approach towards God, and a subordinate-centric approach towards congregants, there needs to be trust built and treatment as equal, as well as a strong focus on the mission and vision of the Christian faith, there needs to be an intentional partnership and a spirit of inclusion. With the LMX theory, there can often become in-groups and out groups, and in church one of the biggest complaints I’ve ever heard in my life is that church is “cliquey”, which is exactly that. There forms a pattern where leaders form close relationships with people that they like and obligatory hierarchical relationships with those that need to be “check on” but aren’t favourable to the leader. Not only is this a terrible leadership practice for the good of the organisation, but it’s also very contrary to what Jesus modelled, where he had the capacity for close relationships with 3 disciples but did not alienate the other 9. His relationship with each was different, but there was no ingroup or outgroup, and all were treated with dignity, respect and value.

The contingency part of Era 2 requires attention to be paid to the situations that are arising and a commitment to addressing the problems and meeting needs in the best way possible, not in the most comfortable way or in the oldest way. Sometimes organisations and even churches need to be restructured or step out in a new area to meet a need or address a problem that is new and unknown territory, such as the Pokemon Go players that went to churches to find virtual Pokemon. Some churches responded to this and offered refreshments, as well as using it as an opportunity to engage with these people that would not normally be at a church. If the chain of the command is too complicated, the bureaucracy can get in the way of necessary decisions being made and contingencies cannot be adequately addressed. The best way to be a contingency adept church is to focus on empowering congregant sand building relationships of trust where anyone can take initiative and receive necessary support because they are a part of a community. The contingency theory places a big emphasis on the situation, and too often churches don’t. Church leaders can be so convinced that their way of running a church is right because it’s the only way they know, and they don’t think to look at possible systemic or structural improvements that can be made to adjust to the environment – this often leading to detrimental situations. It could also mean that in a situation where the pastor is beyond their depth, they can call on the help of another congregant that is better equipped to handle the situation because of personal insight into strengths and weaknesses. This also allows for engagement with congregants on whatever level they are ready to engage in and at whatever maturity they are at. This can become a problem as there are no recruitment procedures or handing in of CVs. There should be a conscious effort from the leadership to find out about new people, to know their life story, and where they’re at, otherwise, the relationship becomes a task and can often lead to acting in a condescending or inappropriate manner. At first, relationships might be more transactional, but a leader should always be willing to learn, even from the least of these.

Era 3: Entropy

Like a ship, the organisation has to sail, and in a time of rapid change and movement, of international crises and disruptions in long-term strategies and understanding of the world, the company can other be viewed as a ship on calm waters where storms occasionally arise at which point steps have to be taken to get back to status quo, or the ship could be on rough and stormy seas, where the organisation has to constantly grow, learn, evolve and re-evaluate. The era saw the emergence of the team leader, or the change leader and influence theory, where it was no longer the job of a leader to manage people within an existing system, but to recreate the system and the culture to best suit the people and achieved intended goals through greater empowerment, diversity, teamwork, and expertise. I remember the drastic culture shock I got when I moved from Cape Town and had to assimilate into the church music band. I had gone from a very autocratic leadership style, where when we arrived two hours before the meeting for practice, we would be handed a list of songs we had never heard before and we would be given specific direction on how to play it. However, the new team was more team-leadership oriented, which was new for me and took a lot of readjustment to get used to. The thing is, team leadership only works when you trust your team members. It is only profitable when you can acknowledge the strengths of your team members and follow them in certain sections. I remember one particular instance where I had to run with a song and I wanted to use a particular musical rhythmic style for it, which the drummer insisted did not exist. It was a very difficult conflict, as I was the most educated musician on the team, and I knew for a fact that it did exist, but the drummer who perhaps had more experience asserted that it did not. This is a small example, but it tends to happen a lot. With a rapidly changing environment, the only way to escape domineering and authoritarian leaders is to trust each other as a team and allow people space to exercise their strengths as it will be of great benefit to everyone in the long run.

Reminiscent of the great man theories is the charismatic leadership that emerged at this point in the influence theories. which as previously discussed is wonderful for mobilising people, but can be detrimental, such as when a pastor makes quick changes between visions and never sees the previous one to completion because it doesn’t work right away, which I have seen with church mission, vision, direction, affiliation, and it means that the church as a whole always comes up short changed because they never give the ideas time to develop into practice and momentum. Team leadership is important and too often in church goes under the guise of team leadership, but in fact becomes a manipulation. With the charismatic (it’s in the name) church’s complete rejection of any of the traditional churches, they believe they have rid themselves of the hypocrisy of religion, when really, as Jesus pointed out, it is a heart issue and not a case of behaviour, but intention. These, of course, are often interrelated, but too often, the self-righteousness, the empty actions, the living behind a facade and putting on a show is still present even in charismatic churches. And the problem when there is this kind of masquerade is that the truth can never be told for what it is, because critical thinking is viewed as insubordination, and pointing out a lack of foresight in the inspiring vision of the charismatic leader results in victimisation, alienation, and excommunication. The danger of influence theories in the same boat as team leadership is that sometimes this charade can occur and practically nothing can be done that will not cause more damage than good. Where there is a team, there must be humility, and those are some of the most beautiful characteristics to see in a church body. We are assured that there will be more and more rapid change, and the only way we as a church can survive that is if we start trusting each other's abilities to contribute and add value.

Era 4: Imagine...

The age of relational leadership theory, on the mutual benefit of both leader and follower based on their relationship and influence on one other, where leadership is a function, not a status. How I long for a church that fully embraces the tenets of this fourth era that really are so in line with their doctrine. I long to see humble leaders become caught up in something greater and beyond themselves and to take others to that river of refreshment and revelation. I long for an era of no mirrors! No place for leaders to catch their own reflection so as to become proud and let power corrupt them. I long for a time where there is the openness to constant experimentation, learning and change in the building process, where rules and control are far from any relationships that take place. Where expectations are those of love, respect, and kindness, where hearts and filled with grace more and more – far beyond rational management or even team leadership. I long for a time when the church will stop breeding emotionally immature people that don’t know how to have boundaries due to the constant rules and expectations that have been set for them and with which they have been threatened. When emotionally mature adults can function, make decisions without constant supervision and conspiracy, but rather that trust is built and fostered, where young people are empowered. I long for the emotional maturity of engaging with people genuinely, of actually supporting them and being there for them when they are going through a difficult time and not just rambling off the quickest google search results for appropriate bible verse, where leaders engage because they truly are interested in building a relationship with you, not because of a formula of people management. I long for a time where there is freedom to make mistakes, confess mistakes, and have a genuine community rally around to assist and support in overtones mutual growth and learning. For a religion that follows a characteristically relational God, that is so deeply and profoundly invested and so intimately connected to our lives, we treat each other so very badly in the church – and maybe that’s because leaders “are never wrong”, or that you have to be of a certain age or status or gender to submit any theory or revelation or question or criticism that is deemed “valid”. I long for the day where I can walk into a new church and find a brother and a sister, on a different road to the same destination as I am, with unity of heart and spirit, and not have to work my way up the church ladder for 5 years before people will take my faith seriously. We need to start viewing people as people, each with their own stories, own struggles and own journeys, all of which are good and beautiful and can be a good part of the community towards a glorious hope. When will be become more inclusive of the family? Imagine a church that places all the measure of its leadership effectiveness on a “relational process that meaningfully engages all participants and enables each person to contribute to achieving the vision”…

#church #leadership #leadership theories #era #leadership era #church leadership #whats wrong with the church #christianity #bible #doctrine #questions #imagine

0 notes

viralhottopics · 8 years

Text

Were on the Brink of a Revolution in Crazy-Smart Digital Assistants

Heres a quick story youve probably heard before, followed by one you probably havent. In 1979 a young Steve Jobs paid a visit to Xerox PARC, the legendary R&D lab in Palo Alto, California, and witnessed a demonstration of something now called the graphical user interface. An engineer from PARC used a prototype mouse to navigate a computer screen studded with icons, drop-down menus, and windows that overlapped each other like sheets of paper on a desktop. It was unlike anything Jobs had seen before, and he was beside himself. Within 10 minutes, he would later say, it was so obvious that every computer would work this way someday.

As legend has it, Jobs raced back to Apple and commanded a team to set about replicating and improving on what he had just seen at PARC. And with that, personal computing sprinted off in the direction it has been traveling for the past 40 years, from the first Macintosh all the way up to the iPhone. This visual mode of computing ended the tyranny of the command linethe demanding, text-heavy interface that was dominant at the timeand brought us into a world where vastly more people could use computers. They could just point, click, and drag.

In the not-so-distant future, though, we may look back at this as the wrong PARC-related creation myth to get excited about. At the time of Jobs visit, a separate team at PARC was working on a completely different model of human-computer interaction, today called the conversational user interface. These scientists envisioned a world, probably decades away, in which computers would be so powerful that requiring users to memorize a special set of commands or workflows for each action and device would be impractical. They imagined that we would instead work collaboratively with our computers, engaging in a running back-and-forth dialog to get things done. The interface would be ordinary human language.

Pipe Down, Jarvis

For decades, the talking tech in movies has eclipsed anything weve been able to build in the real world. Thats finally starting to change.

youtube

Computer from Star Trek | A kind of proto-Google with a voice, the Enterprises computer provides status updates, calculations and tea, Earl Grey, hot.

youtube

HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey | HAL, the psychotic AI with an FM-DJ voice, is able to control every last detail of a mission to Jupiter.

youtube

KITT from Knight Rider | Michael Knights in-dash AI partner is sarcastic, indestructible, and always ready to get Knight out of a jam.

youtube

Jarvis from Iron Man | You never see Jarvis, but his diagnostics, worried nagging, and instant calculations are crucial to Iron Mans superheroness.

youtube

Samantha from Her | She starts by reading his emailand eventually becomes much more than a helpful assistant in Theodore Twomblys ear.

One of the scientists in that group was a guy named Ron Kaplan, who today is a stout, soft-spoken man with a gray goatee and thinning hair. Kaplan is equal parts linguist, psychologist, and computer scientista guy as likely to invoke Chomskys theories about the construction of language as he is Moores law. He says that his team got pretty far in sketching out one crucial component of a working conversational user interface back in the 70s; they rigged up a system that allowed you to book flights by exchanging typed messages with a computer in normal, unencumbered English. But the technology just wasnt there to make the system work on a large scale. It wouldve cost, I dont know, a million dollars a user, he says. They needed faster, more distributed processing and smarter, more efficient computers. Kaplan thought it would take about 15 years.

Forty years later, Kaplan says, were ready. And so is the rest of the world, it turns out.

Today, Kaplan is a vice president and distinguished scientist at Nuance Communications, which has become probably the biggest player in the voice interface business: It powers Fords in-car Sync system, was critical in Siris development, and has partnerships across nearly every industry. But Nuance finds itself in a crowded marketplace these days. Nearly every major tech companyfrom Amazon to Intel to Microsoft to Googleis chasing the sort of conversational user interface that Kaplan and his colleagues at PARC imagined decades ago. Dozens of startups are in the game too. All are scrambling to come out on top in the midst of a powerful shift under way in our relationship with technology. One day soon, these companies believe, you will talk to your gadgets the way you talk to your friends. And your gadgets will talk back. They will be able to hear what you say and figure out what you mean.

If youre already steeped in todays technology, these new tools will extend the reach of your digital life into places and situations where the graphical user interface cannot safely, pleasantly, or politely go. And the increasingly conversational nature of your back-and-forth with your devices will make your relationship to technology even more intimate, more loyal, more personal.

But the biggest effect of this shift will be felt well outside Silicon Valleys core audience. What Steve Jobs saw in the graphical user interface back in 1979 was a way to expand the popular market for computers. But even the GUI still left huge numbers of people outside the light of the electronic campfire. As elegant and efficient as it is, the GUI still requires humans to learn a computers language. Now computers are finally learning how to speak ours. In the bargain, hundreds of millions more people could gain newfound access to tech.

Voice interfaces have been around for years, but lets face it: Thus far, theyve been pretty dumb. We need not dwell on the indignities of automated phone trees (If youre calling to make a payment, say payment). Even our more sophisticated voice interfaces have relied on speech but somehow missed the power of language. Ask Google Now for the population of New York City and it obliges. Ask for the location of the Empire State Building: good to go. But go one logical step further and ask for the population of the city that contains the Empire State Building and it falters. Push Siri too hard and the assistant just refers you to a Google search. Anyone reared on scenes of Captain Kirk talking to the Enterprises computer or of Tony Stark bantering with Jarvis cant help but be perpetually disappointed.

Ask around Silicon Valley these days, though, and you hear the same refrain over and over: Its different now.

One hot day in early June, Keyvan Mohajer, CEO of SoundHound, shows me a prototype of a new app that his company has been working on in secret for almost 10 years. You may recognize SoundHound as the name of a popular music-recognition appthe one that can identify a tune for you if you hum it into your phone. It turns out that app was largely just a way of fueling Mohajers real dream: to create the best voice-based artificial-intelligence assistant in the world.

The prototype is called Hound, and its pretty incredible. Holding a black Nexus 5 smartphone, Mohajer taps a blue and white microphone icon and begins asking questions. He starts simply, asking for the time in Berlin and the population of Japan. Basic search-result stufffollowed by a twist: What is the distance between them? The app understands the context and fires back, About 5,536 miles.

Mohajer rattles off a barrage of questions, and the app answers every one. Correctly.

Then Mohajer gets rolling, smiling as he rattles off a barrage of questions that keep escalating in complexity. He asks Hound to calculate the monthly mortgage payments on a million-dollar home, and the app immediately asks him for the interest rate and the term of the loan before dishing out its answer: $4,270.84.

What is the population of the capital of the country in which the Space Needle is located? he asks. Hound figures out that Mohajer is fishing for the population of Washington, DC, faster than I do and spits out the correct answer in its rapid-fire robotic voice. What is the population and capital for Japan and China, and their areas in square miles and square kilometers? And also tell me how many people live in India, and what is the area code for Germany, France, and Italy? Mohajer would keep on adding questions, but he runs out of breath. Ill spare you the minute-long response, but Hound answers every question. Correctly.

Hound, which is now in beta, is probably the fastest and most versatile voice recognition system unveiled thus far. It has an edge for now because it can do speech recognition and natural language processing simultaneously. But really, its only a matter of time before other systems catch up.

After all, the underlying ingredientswhat Kaplan calls the gating technologies necessary for a strong conversational interfaceare all pretty much available now to whoevers buying. Its a classic story of technological convergence: Advances in processing power, speech recognition, mobile connectivity, cloud computing, and neural networks have all surged to a critical mass at roughly the same time. These tools are finally good enough, cheap enough, and accessible enough to make the conversational interface realand ubiquitous.

But its not just that conversational technology is finally possible to build. Theres also a growing need for it. As more devices come online, particularly those without screensyour light fixtures, your smoke alarmwe need a way to interact with them that doesnt require buttons, menus, and icons.

When I started using Alexa late last year, I discovered it could tell me the weather, answer basic factual questions, create shopping lists that later appear in text on my smartphone, play music on commandnothing too transcendent. But Alexa quickly grew smarter and better. It got familiar with my voice, learned funnier jokes, and started being able to run multiple timers simultaneously (which is pretty handy when your cooking gets a little ambitious). In just the seven months between its initial beta launch and its public release in 2015, Alexa went from cute but infuriating to genuinely, consistently useful. I got to know it, and it got to know me.

This gets at a deeper truth about conversational tech: You only discover its capabilities in the course of a personal relationship with it. The big players in the industry all realize this and are trying to give their assistants the right balance of personality, charm, and respectful distanceto make them, in short, likable. In developing Cortana, for instance, Microsoft brought in the videogame studio behind Halowhich inspired the name Cortana in the first placeto turn a disembodied voice into a kind of character. That wittiness and that toughness come through, says Mike Calcagno, director of Cortanas engineering team. And they seem to have had the desired effect: Even in its early days, when Cortana was unreliable, unhelpful, and dumb, people got attached to it.

Theres a strategic reason for this charm offensive. In their research, Microsoft, Nuance, and others have all come to the same conclusion: A great conversational agent is only fully useful when its everywhere, when it can get to know you in multiple contextslearning your habits, your likes and dislikes, your routine and schedule. The way to get there is to have your AI colonize as many apps and devices as possible.

To that end, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Nuance, and SoundHound are all offering their conversational platform technology to developers everywhere. The companies know that you are liable to stick with the conversational agent that knows you best. So get ready to meet some new disembodied voices. Once you pick one, you might never break up.

David Pierce (@piercedavid) is a senior writer at WIRED.