faithMile

© Copyright 2001, By Jan Wallen
http://www.straightpaths.com

Two businessmen each had a small grocery store. The first businessman only had five workers, and the second businessman had twenty. Although there was always a great deal of work to be done, the first businessman’s employees worked more happily and effectively than the second businessman’s workers. The twenty workers constantly fumbled and grumbled as they went along with their daily tasks. The first businessman was more successful, and his business more profitable, than the second businessman. The reason? The first businessman led his workers using the “Jesus management” style while the second businessman led his workers using the “carrot and stick” style.

The first businessman, who had a good relationship with his employees, looked upon himself as a servant too –

“But Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant. And whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.'” – Matthew 20:25-28 (NIV)

The first businessman was owner and head, and yet, he treated his workers as if he were their servant. And because he led by good example, his workers worked out of genuine love for the tasks given to them.

The second businessman’s “carrot or stick” style showed a measure of effectiveness in the beginning — Every time he dangled a monetary benefit (the carrot) for a job well done and issued a threat to fire them (the stick) if they didn’t work well, his workers worked diligently. But only for a short time. After a while, the workers realized how their employer was abusing the authority he held over them. With the threat of being fired constantly looming above their heads, they were forced to work, but not out of love for the work they did.

As Christian employers, we are given a huge responsibility on how we are to manage our employees. We cannot be called Christian employers by mistreating and abusing our exercise of authority over our workers. There is nothing Christ-like about having a relationship with our workers that is driven by abuse of power and authority. Nor is it Christ-like to be driven by profit while ignoring the needs of our employees. Are they over worked? Are we paying them much less than what they should receive? Are they safe while they do their work?

It will serve us well to remember that there is more to making profits and keeping the pockets of stockholders fat. True success is achieved when our workers give us their full commitment and loyalty because they believe we have and are treating them fairly. We are also responsible for giving our employees equal treatment. Thus, there is no reason for us to show that we favor one worker over the other just because he or she is a relative or a member of the same organization.

“And masters, treat your servants considerately. Be fair with them. Don’t forget for a minute that you, too, serve a master – God in heaven.” – Colossians 4:1 (The Message)

As Christian employers, our responsibility to our workers goes beyond paying fair wages and providing good working conditions. We also have the responsibility of leading by demonstrating good examples every day. It is the principle of leading by serving.

To go back to the story of the two businessmen, the first businessman with the five happy and content employees created a daily schedule of putting one person in charge of opening and closing the store, sweeping the floor and cleaning the toilet. Instead of excluding himself from the schedule because he owned the business, he listed his name too. When it was his turn, he did the tasks just as all his other workers did. In the process, he was able to communicate with his workers that he was “one of them.” That simple act reinforced a positive working environment for his workers because they felt at ease knowing he did not resort to using his authority over them.

This is the essence of what the first businessman in our story did for his workers:

“Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.” – 1 Peter 5:2-3

As Christian employers, it is also our responsibility to care for our employees – to train them, to be sensitive to their needs, and to develop their skills so that they may be better workers and individuals. Not only are we morally responsible for our workers, we are also mentally and spiritually responsible for them. True, fair wages and good working conditions are essential, but we should also provide more. Allowing workers to initiate and organize Bible studies during free hours and encouraging them to practice their religious beliefs in the workplace without letting it interfere with their work are some ways we can promote a sense of openness and trust among our workers.

As a Christian employer, examine yourself and your relationship with your employees. Ask yourself one simple question: Which businessman am I?

——————————————————————————–

Jan Wallen is the owner of http://www.straightpaths.com a site dedicated to helping Christian business people conduct their businesses based on Christian principles. Her free bi-monthly newsletter, the Straight Paths Ezine, is filled with sensible, practical advice to help you in the work place. Subscriptions are available by visiting her website or you may send a blank e-mail to straightpaths@aweber.com

When I was younger, my cousin and I were walking to the store. On the way there, we saw some teenage girls. My cousin walked up to one of them and introduced herself and then said “You’re nice. Will you be my friend?” Being a pre-teen girl myself, with her only a few years younger, I was mortified. That was the most “uncool” thing one could possibly do. However, the girl didn’t ridicule my cousin. She said “Yes, I’ll be your friend” and they talked for a few minutes. Then we went on our way.

Looking back, I think of that moment and I have a different view. Instead of thinking of how uncool it was, I feel a longing for how simple things used to be. Somehow, in adulthood, the need to connect is still there, but the means is vastly different. We can’t just walk up to people and say “Hi. Will you be my friend?” It’s seen as strange. But why is that? Did we grow out of the need for friends? Should we have to jump through hoops in order to qualify for a “Hello” from another person?

One of my new year’s resolutions is to be more open. I want to start with my FaceBook friends. Most of my friends are just people who sit on the page and I rarely see or talk to them, but I can make an effort to reach out. Post some messages on a few walls every day. Leave some private messages asking how people are doing. Of course, my FaceBook friends are people I know and therefore should be interacting with. However, hopefully this will lead to me being able to be more open with people I don’t know, making an effort to say hi or start some small talk. And, just once, I want to get up the nerve to say to someone I’ve just met, “You’re nice. Will you be my friend?”

An article on msn.com called “Jerks of the Web” highlights the fact that our cyberbehavior is often worse than our real life behavior and that anonymity may be a factor in that. One of the featured stories involves a rather convoluted situation that brings up questions of real life vs. game life, real vs. fake, ceremony and solemnity vs. humor, and cultural situations vs. rules of life. 

The story is about a World of Warcraft player and her friends.  A girl, or young woman, played World of Warcraft (called “WoW” by enthusiasts), played WoW a lot and was part of a group, or guild.  In real life, she became sick from either a stroke or cancer, and she died.  Her family and friends had a funeral for her, but her in-game friends also wanted to honor her memory.  Many of these people played online with her, but had never met her in real life and lived very far away from her.  They decided to honor her by having another funeral for her inside the game.  There are several places inside WoW where people can gather and not be attacked, and other places are “pvp” zones (player-vs-player) where attacks are frequent and are to be expected.  The deceased had a favorite place within the game, and it is inside a “pvp” zone.  Since that was her favorite place inside the game, her guild members and friends decided to hold her funeral there.  They posted their plans in several in-game forums inviting everyone to the service and asking for people who chose not to attend to respect the service by not attacking.  The avatars (characters) in the game normally wear elaborate costumes with weapons and armor, but for the funeral they appeared in formal outfits that did not allow for weaponry, and were therefore defenseless.  One group of people from an opposing guild used this opportunity to ambush the funeral and kill all of the unarmed characters.

The ambush didn’t prevent the players from continuing the game, the avatars can be regenerated after being killed.  However, a debate raged about whether or not the actions of the opposing team were disrespectful or not.  The event is posted on YouTube, so it’s easy to read the reactions regarding the players actions.  I read through several pages of reactions and they are mixed.  Many people pointed out that the players gathered in a wargame, in a war zone, and were unarmed, and announced that they would be there, and therefore “asked for it”. Many were also flabbergasted that people would hold a funeral inside a game.  Some believed it was just a stupid idea, while others believed that funerals were somber occasions and holding one inside a game would be disrespectful.  Quite a few posters stated “it’s just a game!” and didn’t believe the ambush was wrong at all, while others remarked that it should have been treated as a funeral because the actual player died, rather than simply retiring a character.  Many spoke of a “fake funeral” while others remarked that a funeral was simply a way of memorializing a person and so even inside the game, it was real and should have been respected.

As a Christian, I was taught to believe that we, as humans, are primarily spiritual beings inside fleshly bodies, and that when we die, our bodies will decay, but our spirits will live on eternally in God’s kingdom or outside of it.  As we venture into cyberlife, I think this becomes more evident.  For instance, in the funeral situation, a real woman died.  Her friends in the game may not have ever seen her – only seeing and interacting with her game character – but they knew of her personality because of the way she interacted inside the game.  In essence, even though she played a character, there was probably a lot of “her” in it because it was a character she chose and designed (rather than an actor playing a preconceived part in a movie, for instance).  The in-game character was either an expression of her, or an expression of who she wanted to be.  The people in her guild interacted with her personality, or the “spirit” of who she was, even though they never got to know her in flesh. Is it right to say that the in-game funeral was “fake” when they were honoring the memory of a real person?  Is it “just a game” when the people behind the characters were aware of a real death and chose to ambush the memorial anyway.  Would it be different if the woman remained alive but chose to kill off her character and stop playing the game?  Would it be different if the characters at the funeral were computer-generated and there were no actual people behind them?  When in a cyber-world, should people, or their characters, act based on the rules of the cyberworld (it’s a war area, so we should ambush) or base on the rules of the real world (it’s a memorial for a human, so respect it as if you would in real life).  Do the interactions with the woman’s character “in spirit” count as much as interactions others had with her in flesh?  Do her cyber friends that knew her “in spirit” mean as much as the friends she had in flesh?  Do the actions of the ambushers count as game actions (game flesh) or should we consider the psychological ramifications of wanting to ruin someone’s memorial (in spirit) and hold them accountable in that way? How much does it actually matter that real humans were honoring the death of another real human, albeit in a cyber world?

I think that we, as humans and as Christians, will have to contend with these types of questions as video games and gaming takes over as a primary form of entertainment.  Perhaps it is our actions in the cyber world that will force us to define who we are in the real one.