And if you should say, “What will we eat in the seventh year? We will not sow, and we will not gather in our produce!"                                                                                                                                 Leviticus Chapter 25, Verse 20

Good question! In the 25^th chapter of Leviticus, God tells the people that they will need to rest their fields for an entire year, a sabbatical.  I love the way the Bible brings forward the fear of the people – What are we going to eat if we can’t farm? This is not a utopian world where people blindly follow instruction. The commandment of the sabbatical year brings with it a host of fears and uncertainty and the Bible names that fear and addresses it.

Yet, we can question why there is a need for a precarious state in the first place.  God assures the people that he will care for them and provide for them, so why do we need a time when life becomes so uncertain?

I have devoted a lot of space in this blog to the spate of literature in the past few years that has examined how we make decisions.  Decision-making, it turns out, is not a rational function.  Our minds can dissect choices and evaluate them, but the actual moment of decision must come from somewhere else.  It comes from the realm of emotion.  Something must interrupt our mind’s constant turning of the evidence and commit us to one side or the other.

 Our emotions are driven by experience.  The other night I was watching Undercover Boss, and this particular boss, the CEO of Retro Fitness, had an immediate connection with one employee whose mother was gravely ill.  Eric, the CEO, had lost his mother while in High School, and felt the pain that this young woman was experiencing.  He knew how important it was for her to be with her mother, and he decided to send her to Italy to visit her.  Sure, most of us could rationally conclude that a trip to see her mother would be a good gesture, but we could also argue that her losing ten days of work might put her behind on her rent, or that now wouldn’t be the best time to go, maybe she should go visit in another 4-5 months so she could see her closer to the end and be by her side.  You see, the mind can make hundreds of rational arguments.  Eric felt that she shouldn’t waste any time and get right over there.  So that’s what he did.

The commandment for a sabbatical year is put into place precisely to make us feel uncomfortable.  To make each of us understand innately what it feels like to be in a precarious position, not knowing where our sustenance will be coming from. 

There are plenty of people around us who live every day not knowing where their next meal is coming from.

If we are to make the decisions that we need to in order to change their situations and assist them as best we can, we need to have an experience that allows us to make those decisions.  We need to feel the pain, discomfort and uncertainty.  We need to know how it feels to rely upon God to provide enough for a meal. 

Think about this example for all of our charitable giving.  What makes us choose one charity over another to which we give our resources and time?  Is this working for us?

I finally got to read Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In.  As COO of Facebook and formerly an employee at Google, Sandberg has made quite a splash with her book, arguing that too many women back off from work just when they should be “leaning” into it.  Her proof for this is the dearth of women in top level jobs throughout corporate America.

I bought the book because I was so agitated by Ms. Sandberg’s Daily Show interview.  In it she implied that the problem is that we raise girls to be nurturers and boys to be leaders.  Society labels girls “bossy” and boys “leaders.” 

Even though men and women are  equal, they are not the same. It would be disingenuous for any parent to tell you that their different gendered children behave exactly the same.   As a group, girls and boys interact very differently socially. If we are being honest, there are girls who lead and girls who are bossy.  There are boys who lead and boys who are bullies.  We might not like it, but these “gender roles” have earned their names – they are not relics of old societal expectations. 

Our problem is when women feel they need to be men to get ahead.  And that is a lot of what Ms. Sandberg argues in her book. 

Let’s look at this from a Jewish perspective.  Many would argue that Judaism has very defined gender roles.  And I would agree.  The Bible indicates that in order to have a growing and just society, roles need to be divided.  A typical Biblical household had a woman raising her children and tending to the home needs while the man went off to work – be it tending sheep or fighting battles.  Yet, occasionally, a woman pops into the story with a leadership role.  Miriam, sister of Moses, and Devorah, the Judge and prophetess, are two clear examples of women stepping  into national leadership roles.  A ringing endorsement of the capacity of women for leadership – and this was thousands of years ago!

Further, Sandberg spends a lot of time on parenting issues, arguing it should be a shared responsibility.  It could be.  Back in the Bible  we see a view of parents as equal in responsibility.  Twice the Bible addresses the way parents should be treated by their children.  In the first, the fifth commandment, the Bible writes “Honor you father and your mother.”  And in Leviticus 18:3 “You should fear your mother and your father.”  Commentators pick up on the use of both parents in each statement and zero in on the flip of the positions for each parent.  Why does honor come with father first and then mother and why is fear structured the opposite way?  Here, the commentators acknowledge gender differences.  Typically, they say, children will respect their mother and fear their father more innately.  Of course there are exceptions, but the Bible wants to ensure that even in recognizing these natural differences, a child is to honor and fear his or her parents equally.  Both parents are capable and responsible.  Further, to me, this is an endorsement of women who choose to primarily focus on the home.  It is an equally respected position.

This is the heart of my contention with Ms. Sandberg.  There is nothing wrong with an ambitious woman.  But why is it wrong to be ambitious about raising a great family? If we are going to be leaning – what’s wrong with leaning in the direction of our kids? 

Maybe the “gender gap” in corporate America is because women are getting it Right. 

Sure, men can raise kids just as well as women.  So if our kids are our number one priority, and more women are devoting themselves primarily to the family, it’s the women who have their priorities aligned.  Why would we want to change that?

What if by leaning in, we are actually falling back from the most important priority – the next generation?

Courtesy of my friend Jenny Lyss, I simply give you a link to a New York Times article published after 9/11 that gives a valuable leadership perspective after the tragic incident in Boston.

New York Times

While feeling the depth of sorrow for those killed and injured, it is good for us to focus on all the good people in the world, and what we can do to continue to outweigh the evil.

I long for the days of leprosy. 

Wait – that sounds strange.  Let me explain.  In the Torah portion from Leviticus we read this week, the Bible talks about people being afflicted with leprosy.  Leprosy in ancient times was believed to be a punishment for bad behavior.  In the Bible, people with leprosy needed to be separated from the national camp until they were cleansed from the disease.  The most famous story of leprosy in Biblical times is that of Miriam, the sister of Moses, who, after speaking badly about Moses’ wife, contracts leprosy and keeps the camp from moving forward until she can rejoin them when her affliction passed.  Leprosy is a disease affecting your skin, nerves and eyes.  We have all but eliminated the disease and it is now treatable with medication when it arises.

So why do I miss it?

We could use some symbolic leprosy – the idea that you are marked for all to see when you have gone off the path. 

We find ourselves in a time when honesty is not the highest value. 

We hide behind “carrot motivation” and “different strokes for different folks” when what we really need is the truth.  What are we afraid of? Why aren’t we being honest?

Many times supervisors fail to confront someone who is underperforming, has an annoying habit or lousy work ethic.  They engage in the work-around.  Everyone begins to pick up the pieces and quietly shoulder the frustration while the supervisor tries to nudge the worker into better productivity. 

We think we are doing right by the worker.  We are not. 

And we aren’t being honest with ourselves. We aren’t as forgiving as we are making ourselves out to be.  We aren’t really okay with the behavior.  We are building frustration and resentment, and the worker might be clueless as to why.

Tell it like it is.  It might be painful in the moment, but it pays off in trust, productivity and attitude. 

In the scenario of simply not addressing problems, your team becomes distrustful, frustrated, sluggish, disempowered and unmotivated. You’re not hiding anything.  Everyone is keenly aware of even the slightest foibles in their co-workers.  And you’re not being fair to the floundering worker.  No one can change unless the issue is named.  People do not intuit their own deficiencies.

Don’t think that hiding the truth is the sole domain of the corporate world.  In our not-for-profit sphere, lay leadership is fraught with hiding the truth.  Many times people are not upfront about lacking leadership qualities in volunteers.  We pass people from organization to organization without disclosing the warning labels that should accompany them.

Which brings me back to the benefits of leprosy.  This was a disease you could not hide.  It served as a neon sign.  This person is not yet ready to be in the fold.  It was painful.  But it gave the person the opportunity to change and come back healed. 

Please don’t misunderstand – I am not advocating being mean. 

Honesty is not cruel and it is not disrespectful.  It is just speaking the truth in a way the other person can hear it. 

When you come from a place of respect and optimism, genuinely hoping the person chooses to improve, your conversation is forthright, not demeaning.

So maybe we don’t need a neon sign.  But we need transparency.

Margaret Thatcher died this week, and it seems to me that she represents a more honest approach to leadership.  British Members of Parliament don’t seem to hold much back.  As Americans we can laugh at the name calling and interrupting and “uncivil” behavior, but maybe they are on to something we have lost.  Honesty.

I love the “aha” moment that happens in class when leaders are introduced to the Servant Leader.  In Robert Greenspan’s seminal book, he defines a leader as someone who “leads from behind,” who puts others in front and is the caring and nurturing presence from behind that always has the organization as her first priority.  Somehow it touches the truth of what it means to lead, and you can see participants soaking it in and integrating the concept into their experiences.  It is powerful.  But it also comes with a danger warning.

Leading from behind can cause you to fall too far back --  to lollygag, rather than to lead.

In today’s New York Times, Paul Wolfowitz takes Hillary Clinton and the administration to task for ‘leading from behind’ in the Middle East.  Mr. Wolfowitz, former deputy secretary of defense, maintains that the state department has let others set the agenda and provide the means, taking a role of supporter, rather than provider.  

Biblical leaders are almost all shepherds.  Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David – they were all shepherds while, or in David’s case – before, they were leaders of a nation.  Even Moses, who should have had every qualification with his training as a Prince of Egypt, had to spend time as a shepherd before taking on the mantle of leadership.  What is so vital about a shepherd’s training?  Shepherds must lead their sheep from behind.  Sheep never follow the one in front.  So we learn that leaders are gatherers and caretakers, looking out for the stray, and keeping the group moving with gentle prods.

What we need to remember is that even when you are “leading from behind” – you have to be leading!

You are still a servant leader.  Sometimes the temptation is great to rest from leading.  We are tired from the risks that come with it.  Or we just want to focus on what’s in front of us, not have to project consequences down the line.

That’s when we can start to lollygag.

As Wolfowitz puts it “Policy makers should never underestimate the risks of action in the face of any conflict, but neither should they underestimate the risks of inaction.”  Absence of leadership can be dangerous. 

We not only want to, but must respond to people’s needs. 

And we need to respond from a place of leadership – hear the needs, feel the needs and meet them – take action to provide for the needs.  That’s the shepherd.  He doesn’t wait for the sheep to find water.  She doesn’t assume someone else will send the stray sheep back.  The shepherd might be in the back, but there is no question who is the one with the staff.