Charisma, Culture and Performance


 

Abstract:  Charisma Culture and Performance

The paper explores the relationship between charismatic leadership, national culture and organizational performance based on a review of relevant literature and proposes hypotheses on the nature of the relationships in the Jamaican context as a basis for further study.

Beginning with the concept of charismatic authority or leadership as first presented by Max Weber in his essay, The Three Types of Legitimate Rule, and ending with the transformational leadership constructs of Idealized influence, attributed and behavioral, as developed by Bernard M. Bass, Bruce J. Avolio in a series of books and articles, the paper synthesizes the literature on charismatic leadership to give a clear assessment of its impact on follower and ultimately organizational performance.  Importantly, the ethical dimensions of charismatic leadership and its classification as either authentic or pseudo is also presented.

The paper then considers the moderating effect of national culture on the impact of charismatic leadership on follower and organizational performance.  Possible mediating effects of national culture are examined from the theoretical framework developed by Geert Hofstede who has provided extensive data supporting four classifications of national culture; power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism and masculine-feminine.  The fact of cultural differences in how management and leadership is viewed is explained through Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) which contends that people’s underlying beliefs and assumptions influence how followers may assess leadership style.  Developing the interplay between charismatic leadership, national culture and organizational performance, the paper includes a review of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness research project (GLOBE) which builds on the work of Hofstede and Implicit Leadership Theory to derive a Culturally Endorsed Implicitly Leadership Theory (CLT).  Among the six leadership dimensions identified by the GLOBE study is charismatic/leadership.

A hypothesis is presented which proposes the possible impact of charismatic leadership on follower and ultimately organizational performance within the context of the Jamaican cultural disposition towards the charismatic leadership style.  A study is then proposed to test the hypothesis.

 

 

Presentation: CHARISMA, CULTURE AND PERFORMANCE

Presented by: N. Christian Stokes

PhD Candidate:  Economic Development Policy

The Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES)

University of the West Indies, Mona Campus

Charisma

  • Aristotle (trans., 1954) In the Rhetoric:
    • Leader must gain the confidence of her followers by using creative rhetorical means (i.e., charismatic and transformational),
    • The Rhetorical means include:
      • Rousing follower emotions (the “pathos”),
      • Providing a moral perspective via her personal character (“ethos”), and
      • Using reasoned argument (“logos”).
    • Weber
      • Max Weber (1947) normally credited with developing the term “charisma” as used in leadership theory today
      • “The three types of legitimate rule”, Published posthumously in 1958
      • Three types of legitimate authority:
        • Traditional
        • Charismatic, and
        • Legal-rational authority
      • Charismatic leadership arises “in times of psychic, physical, economic, ethical, religious, [or] political distress” (Weber, 1968)
  • Etzioni (1964)
    • Three types of power:
      • physical power, entailing the use of threats or coercion;
      • material power, entailing the use of rewards; and
      • symbolic (charismatic) power, entailing the use of normative or social power
    • Symbolic (charismatic) power leads to greater commitment and less alienation than physical or material power
  • Downton (1973)
  • Proposed a theory of transactional, charismatic, and inspirational leadership in the context of the rebel political leader.
  • Contractual relationship between leader and follower vs charismatic leadership
  • Charismatic Leaders
    • Transcendental ideals and authority that facilitate the followers’ identification with the leader
    • Commitment and trust augmented by inspirational leadership
    • Persuasive – followers invest in and make sacrifices toward the identified ideals,
    • Gives followers a sense of purpose, and
    • Creates meaning for actions distinct from the charismatic appeal
  • Inspirational leadership independent of charismatic leadership; according to Downton (1973), inspirational leadership does not foster follower dependence on the leader. Rather, “inspirational commitment is always contingent on the leader’s continuing symbolic presentation of the follower’s world view”
  • House (1977)
  • Presented an integrated theoretical framework and testable proposition to explain the behavior of charismatic leaders:
    • Focused on the psychological impact of charismatic leaders on followers.
    • Referred to charismatic leaders as having the necessary persuasive skills to influence others
    • Described the personal characteristics of charismatic leaders
    • Suggested that individual differences of charismatic leaders might be measurable
    • Proposed that the basis for the charismatic appeal is the emotional interaction that occurs between followers and their leader
  • Charismatic leaders are those “who by force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers”
  • Behaviors:
    • Display confidence in their own abilities and in their followers,
    • Set high expectations for themselves and their followers, and
    • Show confidence that these expectations can be achieved.
    • Display a high degree of self-confidence, pro-social assertiveness (dominance), and moral conviction.
    • Model what they expect their followers to do, exemplify the struggle by self-sacrifice, and
    • Engage in image-building and self-promotion actions to come across as powerful and competent.
  • Results
    • These leaders become role models and objects of identification of followers,
    • Followers emulate their leader’s ideals and values and are enthusiastically inspired and motivated to reach outstanding accomplishments
  • Burns (1978)
    • Defined leadership as “inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivations—the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations—of both leaders and followers
    • The leader–follower interaction was either:
      • Transactional leadership, which entailed a relationship based on the exchange of valued items, whether political, economic, or emotional; or
      • Transforming leadership, where the motivation, morality, and ethical aspirations of both the leader and followers are raised.
    • Transforming leadership
      • Raised the consciousness of followers for what is important, especially with regard to moral and ethical implications, and make them transcend their self-interest for that of the greater good
      • Focused on transcendent and far-reaching goals and ideals—has a greater effect on followers and collectives as compared to
    • Transactional leadership
      • Focused on promoting self-interest and is thus limited in scope and impact
      • Opposing ends of a spectrum – one or the other
  • Bass’s (1985)
  • Transformational-transactional theory includes both elements of:
    • “New leadership” (i.e., charisma, vision, and the like) and
    • “Old leadership” (i.e., transactional leadership behavior focused on role and task requirements).
  • Bass theory in its current form (Avolio & Bass, 1991; Bass & Avolio, 1997). Leadership constructs:
  • Transformational:
    • idealized influence attributes, (charisma)
    • idealized influence behaviors, (charisma)
    • inspirational motivation,
    • intellectual stimulation, and
    • individualized consideration
  • Transactional
    • contingent rewards,
    • management-by-exception active, and
  • Passive Avoidant Leadership
  • Charisma and Authentic Transformational Leadership
    • Howell and Avolio (1995) Charisma itself was value neutral and that effective charismatic leaders can vary widely in their ethical standards
    • Leaders could only be truly charismatic if their leadership resulted in a positive transformation within their organization.
    • Authentic and pseudo transformational leaders may exhibit the same behaviors but the underlying values, morals and intentions may be vastly different. Noticeably lacking in the behavior of pseudo transformational leaders is their lack of individualized consideration.

Cultural Considerations

  • Geert Hofstede (1980) – Geert Hofstede, widely regarded as the foremost expert on national cultures, produced Cultures’ Consequencies (1980)
    • Four classifications of national culture;
      • power distance,
      • uncertainty avoidance,
      • individualism-collectivism and
      • masculine-feminine
  • Hofstede (1991) added a fifth dimension – long term orientation.
  • Jamaica
  • Power distance
    • This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal – it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us.
    • Jamaica scores low on this dimension (score of 45). Features:
      • Independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers, Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members, Employees expect to be consulted, Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative
  • Individualism
    • The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people´s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We”.
    • Jamaica, with a score of 39. Features:
      • Considered a collectivistic society, Close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’ paramount over-rides most other societal rules and regulations, Strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group, Offence leads to shame and loss of face, Employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms, Hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, Management is the management of groups.
  • Masculinity / Femininity
    • A high score (masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner / best in field – a value system that starts in school and continues to impact organisational behaviour.
    • A low score (feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A feminine society is one where quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable.
    • Jamaica scores 68. Features:
      • A masculine society, People “live in order to work”, Managers are expected to be decisive and assertive, Emphasis is on equity, competition and performance Conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.
  • Uncertainty avoidance
    • The dimension Uncertainty Avoidance has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? This ambiguity brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learnt to deal with this anxiety in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the UAI score.
    • Jamaica scores 13. Features:
      • Low preference for avoiding uncertainty, Maintain a relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principlesDeviance from the norm is more easily tolerated
      • People believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they are ambiguous or do not work they should be abandoned or changed
      • Schedules are flexible,
      • Hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake, precision and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening.
  • Long term orientation
    • The long term orientation dimension is closely related to the teachings of Confucius and can be interpreted as dealing with society’s search for virtue, the extent to which a society shows a pragmatic future-oriented perspective rather than a conventional historical short-term point of view.
    • So far there are no scores for Jamaica on this dimension.

How effective would charismatic leadership be in this culture?.

Culture and Organizational Performance

  • The impact of culture on organizational operations and leadership may be analyzed at three different levels (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997)
    • National culture,
    • Organizational culture and
    • Professional culture.
  • We will concern ourselves here with national and organizational culture.
    • National culture has been defined by Geert Hofstede (1991) as “the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others”
    • Hofstede (1998) defined organizational culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one organisation from another’. While many organizational cultures may exist within a single national culture, it is generally accepted that national culture has a higher degree of influence at the individual level than does organizational culture.

Impact of Culture on Leadership

  • In reviewing the existing literature on leadership it is important to acknowledge that the practice of leadership is influenced by the culture in which leadership is practiced (Dorfman and Howell, 1997)
  • .Yokochi (1989) found that contingent reward is more implicit in Japan than in the US.
  • The GLOBE project (Den Hartog and House, 1999) investigated transformational leadership in 64 nations and identified attributes associated with charismatic/transformational leadership that are universally applicable.
    • The most important of these attributes were:
    • Motive arouser, foresight, encouraging, communicative, trustworthy, dynamic, positive, confidence builder and motivational
  • Shahin and Wright (2004) tested Bass and Avolio’s (1994) assertions in the context of Egypt. Studying employees of 10 different banks, the researchers found that only 3 of the 7 US ideal leadership factors corresponded with those in Egypt.  The other four factors appeared unique to Egypt though they could be extended to the greater Middle East.
    • The findings suggest that transactional and transformational leadership as currently configured may not be applicable in non-western cultures. These findings were supported by Casimir, Waldman, Bartam and Yang (2006) in their study of transactional and transformational leadership in China and Australia.
    • Their results indicated that transformational leadership significantly predicted performance and trust in the Australian population, while only predicting trust, and not performance in the Chinese population. Transactional leadership did not predict trust or performance in either population. This is another indication that these theories may not be as universal as proposed.
  • Contrary to Casimir et al’s findings, Walumbwa, Lawler, and Avolio (2007) compared data from China, India, Kenya, and the U.S. and found that as long as the appropriate style of leadership (either transactional or transformational) is used in the correct country, followers will respond positively.
  • Bass and Avolio (2004) therefore found location to be a contingent issue in the leader follower relationship. The researchers looked specifically at individualism versus collectivism as a cultural contingency.  They concluded that collectivist cultures provide a responsive environment for transformational leaders and found that this leadership style was positively related to efficacy beliefs, job satisfaction, and commitment.
  • Corporate culture can also have an impact on leadership style. Bass and Avolio (1993) observe that while leaders play a role in fashioning corporate culture, corporate culture can itself influence leadership style and efficacy.  A new leader, for example, in an environment that favors strict adherence to policies, procedures, and processes, may in order to be effective, adapt a transactional approach and over time move towards a transformational style in order to effect change in the culture.
  • Hofstede (1980 and 1983) studied the interaction of culture, leadership, motivation and organization with leadership style and effectiveness. Individualism and power distance were shown to have the greatest impact on leadership.
  • Cultures with high power distance are more tolerant of centralization and autocratic leadership while those with low power distance are more inclined to decentralization and participative leadership.
  • Yeung and Ready (1995) global leadership study found that that less than 40 percent of leadership practices valued in the United States business culture were also valued in Korea.
  • Cultural differences could have a significant impact on the efficacy of one transformational or transactional leadership. Transformational leadership relies on participation, open communication and loyalty (Avolio and Bass, 2004) and as such may meet resistance in high power distance cultures, and high individualism cultures where a more directive style is expected and accepted (Hofstede, 1983).  Similarly, a transactional leadership style may not be well accepted in low power distance, participative cultures (Hofstede).
  • Leader effectiveness relies substantially on the ability to motivate followers to perform. Cultural dimensions impacting motivation are:
    • individualism-collectivism,
    • uncertainty avoidance, and
    • masculinity-femininity (Hofstede, 1980).

Suggested Research – Charisma, Culture and Performance in Jamaica

  • Examine:
  • National culture response to Charismatic leadership
    • Which dimensions of culture enhance or reduce the efficacy of charismatic leadership
  • Organizational culture response to charismatic leadership
    • Which dimensions of culture enhance or reduce the efficacy of charismatic leadership
    • Impact of normative or chaotic conditions
    • Charisma vs Inspirational leadership
    • Impact of dissolution of charismatic power
    • Efficacy of bureaucratic vs charismatic power and leadership

References:

Coser, L. A. (1971). Masters of sociological thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Weber, M. (1958). “The three types of legitimate rule”. Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions, 4 (1): 1-11. Translated by Hans Gerth.

Riesebrodt, M. (1999). “Charisma in Max Weber’s sociology of religion”. Religion, 29: 1-14.

Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Leadership: Past, present, future. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–179.

Hunt, J. G. (1999). Tranformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129–144.

Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 459–514.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range leadership development programs: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates.

Character, Circumstances and Destiny

Chairman; Head Table parents, graduates, friends, good afternoon.

I thank Principal Whytely for his kind invitation and the opportunity to speak here today.  I have to say that I have thought about what to say with great care.  Addressing young minds is more like carving your initials into a tree than writing your name on a blackboard.  Now I am not even sure if you use blackboards anymore but I know that the day’s lessons, written with great care on a blackboard can be easily removed by the idlest of passersby.   But an etching on the bark of a tree can last for generations.

I assume, that you do not have the cynicism to dismiss as useless what I may have to say even before hearing it and that you have now near its peak a mind that wants to hear, assess, maybe learn, and perhaps even change.  I ask you to open for me, that fertile mind as I intend more to etch on your consciousness thoughts and ideas which I hope cannot be so easily removed as writing on a blackboard but which may somewhere, in intended, or unintended places leave nuggets that may be of some value on this great journey of life which lies before you.  I depend on the truth of Oliver Holmes’ words ‘A mind, once expanded by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions’.

Before making my main points I ask each of you to look around you, to your left and to your right, in front and behind, the persons you see will be your most trusted friends for the rest of your lives.  There is a trust that develops when you have nothing, that you will lose as you move through life, and begin to have things, begin to have influence, and therefore begin to question motives of those who would be your friends.  Those who are your friends when you are unsure as you are now, without anything to give in return but friendship itself, and who accept you with pimples, and bad fitting clothes and personal knowledge of your awkward maturing moments will be your best friends from henceforth.  Open your homes your hearts and whatever doors you can for these people as you go forward.  Take time to stop and say hello to them on the highways and byways of life.  Nurture and value these relationships.  They are hard to find.  Trust me on this – Good fren betta than pocket money.

 

I share with you therefore, and hold you to this, the words of Jesus in John 15:12.  This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you.

 

As you leave these gates, perhaps for the last time for many of you, you do not know what you will encounter, you will feel unsure, many will have dreams and goals that you have no idea how you will achieve.  Life is neither straight forward, nor straight up, nor straight down.  It is a little bit of everything.  Where you end up is entirely up to you.  It’s important that you understand this and know it to the very core of your being.  It does not depend on where you were born, who your parents are, or where you went to school.  It depends completely and totally on you.

Let me share with you a case to make my point.  I listened to an interview with a man named Mohed Altrad, recently.  He started the interview by saying,’ I don’t know where I was born exactly, nor the day, nor the year nor the month’.  Mohed started life in a Bedouin tribe roaming the deserts of Syria.  His father was the head of the tribe.  He did not get to know his father though.  His father actually raped his mother twice, when she was only thirteen years old.  The first time she got pregnant with Mohed’s older brother and the second to Mohed himself.  His older brother was killed by his father and his mother died giving birth to him.  He was taken in by his grandmother who didn’t want him to go to school, advising him instead to learn to be a Shepherd that he did not need to go to school to learn how to be a good shepherd.  He knew intuitively that he did not want to be a Shepherd, that he wanted something else for himself.  He got up early in the morning every week day and snuck off to school, without shoes, without a uniform, just a simple cotton rag wrapped around his waist.  Mohed related – everyday when he came back from school, he had what he called ‘a terrible sanction’ from his grandmother.  In other words, beating.  He describes his so called school as a small building with a lot of holes in it.  He was not registered in the school so he looked through the holes from outside at the blackboard to learn.  The teacher at the school, after seeing him outside for months, committed to learning, invited him in to sit.  Before too long he proved to be one of the best students in the school.  Not only because he was bright, but because he was motivated to learn, to improve himself.  Tired from getting up early, sore from the beatings, he sat among the sheep and studied after classes were done. ‘Life in the desert he said’ has its own rules’. One of those rules was that if you are poor, if you are at the edge of the tribe, you have no rights.  One of the rights you don’t have is to be first in the class, which he was.  So since he was audacious enough to come first in the class, his fellow students decided to teach him a lesson.  So they dug a hole in the desert and threw him in it.  That he described as a Terrible moment in his life.  But he survived, he climbed out of the hole and kept climbing in life.

Hi grandmother died and again he was alone and faced the terror of the unknown.  One of the members of his tribes was married but could have no children so he adopted Mohed and gave him a couple of meals a day.  Eventually he won a scholarship to France where he continued to struggle and eventually started his own business.

Over the years he built a multi-billion dollar business and on June 7, 2015 He was chosen as the World Entrepreneur of the year at an event in Monte Carlo. A Bedouin reject turned Billionaire Philanthropist.

He said at the function “My story should tell anyone that you can change your destiny,”

 

Let me share with you a few important lessons from this one man’s experience, an experience which has been told in many versions from the story of Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers to stories that are here today, among you, thought of, experienced but yet untold.  It is part of the human experience.

 

Where you are from is not as important as what you are here to do.  Mohet was from a backward forgotten desert in Arabia yet he rose to be World Entrepreneur of the year, Jamaica can barely be seen on a globe, a spot, a speck, yet we have produced the world’s best musicians, artists, activists and sports men – from Garvey to Marley, Nanny to Shelly, we have given to the world leaders and achievers beyond what our size would suggest.  Do not say to yourself, I am only from here, therefore I cannot reach over there.  Here is yours, and there can be yours too.  Indeed the world is yours, grasp it with both hands and shape it.  You belong.  You are important, you matter.  Never forget that.  Again I turn to the book of John.

When told by Philip that he had found the one Moses wrote about in the law, Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph.  Nathaniel responded ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and see.

The savior himself came from a place that people regarded as backward, Nazareth, often described as a backwater in the Roman empire, yet he was as John described the Lamb of God, Come to take away the sins of the world

Where you are from is not as important as what you are here to do.

The second learning I want to leave with you is that character matters more than circumstances.  Who you are as a person, to your core, is more important than the circumstances you find yourself in.  Mohed found himself, poor, abused and forsaken, destined to be a shepherd and live out his days in the deserts of Syria.  Those were his circumstances, but not his destiny.  That was not who he was.  From the foundation of his character he set goals, had dreams, persevered and suffered, he took his destiny upon himself and did not allow circumstances to define him.  Think of this for me.  Think on it in your own life now, and remember it for the circumstances you will find yourself in repeatedly through life.  You will always face challenges, great and small, it is an inextricable part of the human experience.  But your life’s rudder is in who you are.  And by the way, to be clear, character is as important, if not more important when you have success than when you have failure.  I have seen many a decent young man of strong moral bearing, lose his way because he had become financially successful and the lures and temptations of the world call his name.  Character is important.  It is not easy, some days are better than others, it’s not perfection its practice, list your Principles, practice them, live by them.  Learn to forgive yourself.  Learn to be gentle with yourself.  Learn to start over with yourself.

Like Joseph in Potiphar’s house, know when to leave your cloak and run.  You may pay a price, you may suffer, but God has a plan for each of you and God knows best.

The third learning I want to leave with you follows on this.  Looking back, Mohed could see where his suffering led to his success but it was not evident in the midst of his suffering, all he saw and felt was pain.  As the founder of Apple, Steve Job’s said in a commencement speech, ‘We cannot connect the dots going forward, only looking back.’  It’s hard to see where suffering is part of God’s plan for you.  To you it’s only suffering.  Consider Mohed, the troubles that caused the man who adopted him not to be able to have children, was a big problem for the man and his wife but it was part of God’s plan for Mohed.  Later when he wanted to be an Air Force Pilot, the Air Force stopped taking in new recruits, his option was to go to France to do anything he could find, so dejected he went, speaking not a word of French, but it was from France that he built his business empire.  He could not have known this as he slept cold and hungry in meagre accommodations he was afforded.

How would Joseph have known, as he lay in a pit that his brother’s dug for him, that this was part of a plan not only for himself but for an entire nation, Israel.  How would he have known that the path to becoming chief administrator for Egypt led through a dungeon?  He could not know, he could only have faith that some good thing would come from all that he endured.  That all things work together for the good of them that serve God.

As you take on this great adventure of life, there will be times you will wonder, why me lord, you will feel stagnated, there will be times when nothing seems to be working in your favor, remember you are only on one page of a very long book, have faith, in yourself and in God, that he has written for your life a grand and beautiful story.  Enjoy every moment of the ride.  It’s is your life, it’s your gift, the greatest gift you will ever receive.

The world lies before you, the journey lies before you, with strong character and sure faith, strike out with all the enthusiasm and optimism of youth, make your dent in the universe, make yourself better, make your family better, make your community and your country better.  We are depending on you. This is in your hands, empower yourselves and be the change you want to see around you.

I close with the words of Maryann Williamson

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.  Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

 

Congratulations to each of you, I wish for you God’s richest blessing, and Godspeed.  I leave with you the admonition and blessing that my fathers left me.  Walk good.

Thank you all very much.