There is an on going study in Russia that is looking at the domestication of Foxes. It started in the late 1950’s, and used selective breeding to create a “dog like” fox and started to see dramatic results in just four generations.
They started by selecting foxes at fur farms that exhibited less “wild response” when their cages were opened. Then for the next generation,
the researchers hand-fed the cubs. They also attempted to touch or pet the foxes.
If the next generation of foxes show any aggressiveness, they were discarded from the test. Less than 10% made the cut to continue. After just four generations they started to behave like dogs. They wagged their tails and eagerly sought contact with human companionship.
They also started to show physical changes. Floppy, droopy ears ears like domesticated dogs. Fur color more dog like, legs getting shorter, and tails getting curly.
The experiment is still ongoing, and is sustained by selling the domesticated foxes for about $9000 each.
I’ve noticed that at my work, “selective breeding” is used to select leaders. People that exhibit the behavior deemed favorable by the leadership gets promoted. About 10% make the cut each generation, and the rest are discarded, doomed to be a regular workers the rest of their career, and not be a leader.
The selection criteria deemed “favorable” is not always what is best for the organization, but can at time reflect biases (sex/age/physical appearance, etc), old ways of thinking, or just the antiquated “good old boys” network.
I also see this at church. Church leaders are selected when they show the favorable qualities. Each generation, or step on the leadership ladder, is evaluated, and about 10% is selected to advance to the next generation (step up). About 10% of Bishops counselors will get selected as Bishops. About 10% of Bishops make the cut to be in a SP, and so on. There is nothing wrong with this, as an organization has the right to select the kind of leaders it wants.
But where it can hinder the church is the same problems I see at my secular job. Biases, old ways of thinking, or even a “good old boys” network in selecting leaders can hinder the church in meeting the needs of its ever changing and increasingly diverse membership.
What do you think. Is there a better way of selecting leaders than the current “selective breeding”? Is it too hard to change because we believe that all calls are made by “revelation”, or “inspiration”, despite J. Golden Kimball’s quote below?
“Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn’t been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn’t have been a damn thing in this church.”
J. Golden Kimball
Wheat & Tares 
breeding
I thought for a moment this OP was about taming the white fox (Uchtdorf) who has been giving quite demure talks lately. I am afraid he has received a reprimand being too forward thinking and slightly progressive (European!).
Every day at work is like living in Stepford – but hey, it’s financially rewarding.
The fact than we can fairly accurately predict new apostles (see Times and Seasons) shows how entrenched the current process is.
In other recent news, I’m now taking bets for the start date of the Millenium…
Identical stentorian deliveries & loaded pauses. You do the math.
Based on what I’ve seen, bishops and stake presidents hold two main qualities: First, their socioeconomic status is higher than average. Second, they convey a willingness to support the Brethren at every level.
You can understand why this is the case. Leaders in the Church are seen as successful individuals who openly support other successful individuals. And because the LDS community is one of cultural conformity, it stands to reason that those who openly support conformity will excel.
I wonder if our bishoprics, high councils, and stake presidencies would be enhanced if they included more members who were not conformists and not on the higher end of the socioeconomic scale. Heck, maybe we could really get crazy and include a woman or two.
Nathan, thanks for the free editorial guidance! I may be well breaded, but I’m not well bred!
I suggest each of us focus on following the Savior’s teachings to make changes in our lives by using the gift of repentance, so we can be like the people described in the Book of Mormon in Helaman’s day.
Alma 46:38-39
I see the point of the OP, but I’ve also seen a number of exceptions. I’m currently in Utah County, but my Bishop is actually one of the more liberal Bishops I’ve ever had. He’s almost polar opposite the Stake President, yet they get along great. Our Bishop also makes it more sincerely obvious than most I’ve seen that this certainly wasn’t a job he was campaigning for. I really don’t think that necessarily would exclude him from higher leadership callings.
I’d be naive if I said nepotism doesn’t play a small role from time to time, but it’s hard to argue the fact that someone who has good values and leadership capabilities was likely raised that way, and likely has siblings and cousins who were raised similarly. Family values can be long-lasting and far-reaching.
Of course this happens everywhere but in the private sector companies are essentially being forced to diversify because of new laws, customer demands (more and more companies require their suppliers to meet diversity metrics), social pressure/ PR, and of course mounting evidence that diverse companies do better (because they serve diverse populations and so should reflect their customer base and because it’s great to get a wider perspective for ideas and because there are a lot of talented underrepresented people out there etc etc). Absent these pressures I doubt would change would happen because it’s natural to pick people like you and takes real effort to change recruiting and hiring practices. Most people aren’t willing to mess with the system – especially when it benefits them and takes effort – until external factors make the costs of not changing out weight the costs of change.
Unfortunately I don’t know of a similar force for the church because our top leaders aren’t accountable to anyone but themselves (and God … but God seems that have a hard time getting through people’s bias). Maybe they’d see losing membership and activity rates, a trailing not leading indicator of a problem, but so far their response to that seems to be “hmm, we are losing people over gay marriage and our treatment of women—guess we better give some more GC talks about how we’re right about gay marriage and the male-only priesthood so that people can fix their testimonies.” At least some of them seem to lack the capacity for self-reflection and self-criticism and seem always to blame the members for any issues. Without someone forcing them to self-reflect (and who will? We don’t ever get to give feedback?) I am very pessimistic about change.
My current bishop has two brothers who are also bishops in nearby wards, and his father is a prior mission president and recently released temple president. Though my bishop is a decent and humble guy, I can’t help but think his only qualification for getting the job was his last name. I don’t like the conformist leadership culture described in the OP, but what I really can’t stand are the local Church leadership dynasties that naturally extend from that culture. I wish the Church would do more to break them up.
The thing is… It’s hard to get people to fill callings. The uber righteous, loyalist, conformist members always say yes. I wouldn’t say yes. I know plenty of other people who wouldn’t say yes. And it isn’t because we don’t value the church or see the importance of having someone do the leadership work. Its because these callings require sacrificing things that I’ll not willing to sacrifice. Which is a problem that is just as hard to solve as straight nepotism.
Arginoil, there does seem to be a nice connection between the title of the OP, some of the text, and the Silver Fox. When Prez Uchtdorf was first selected for the Q15, I was a little cynical: just another old white guy. It turned out my early assessment was completely wrong. I miss him in the P3. Perhaps he is too charismatic?l I wish there was a mechanism for encouraging the Q15 to return him to the P3.
The Church has historically had a nepotism problem: Smith, Young, Kimball, etc. And recently the issue has come to the fore again with the selection of Holland and Eyring. I suppose M. Holland is being rewarded for helping to lead the fight against SSM. But it would have been great to select a woman to be president of BYU-I. Instead they made it sort of a hereditary position.
As for local leadership, it would be great to get more membership input into the selection. I’ve seen some very strange selections for Bishop. If there was more input from members, maybe some of these inappropriate selections would be avoided.
Talented leadership is important. However, as a reminder, the most talented business person of Jesus’ disciples also betrayed Him.
I would encourage everyone to read or reread Hugh Nibley’s speech, “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift.”
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/issues/V16N04.pdf (pages 12-21)
Hi son, Thought this was really interesting. J Golden Kimball was a unique GA known for his “colorful” language. Although I generally don’t condone such language, I certainly understand the struggle to not use it at times, especially when you feel or want to express something with emphasis or great passion. What I do appreciate is his brutal honesty which is very refreshing and much preferred to more modern GAs feigned claims that some experiences are just too sacred to share (what are we swine not worthy of pearls?) Love, Dad
________________________________
Thank you, MW, for pointing us to Hugh Nibley’s Dialogue article. Nibley devastated the target when he said that managers try to avoid making waves. After more than 40 years of working for the federal government, I would add that managers also usually live in perpetual fear that their subordinates will make waves. I have also found this to be true in the Church. A few managers are also leaders who lift up and inspire, but are, IMO, a definite minority.
Shortly after having joined the Church, I was assigned by the USAF to Okinawa. I had to do shift work and work weekends. My chain of command was very supportive about my church attendance, even on Sundays I was scheduled to work. Many of my friends at our Church’s Servicemen Branch, though, assigned to different units, were not so lucky. Several faced active pressure and harassment, particularly in the Marines, from their chain of command to not keep the commandments, particularly WRT the WOW; several were forbidden from attending church.
Our Church District President, a Lt. Col. in the AF, bless him, he actively went to bat for these young men and women, and succeeded in getting their problems solved, but at the price of ruining his prospects for promotion, because he had angered his superiors when he made waves.
The DP informed Elder Marion Hanks, then in charge of military affairs for the Church, of the ongoing problems faced by young servicemen and women, and Elder Hanks was supportive,but surprised that the Church’s Military Affairs Committee had told him that “everything was fine.” Career Church bureaucrats had painted a rosy picture, when the reality was quite different.
There is a memorable Chinese phrase about informing superiors in the chain of command: bao xi bu bao you 報喜不報憂. Report only good news to the emperor.
Human nature. The messenger does not want to be shot for bearing bad news.
Shortly
In a stake we lived in there were a bunch of guys who played golf together, about ten to fifteen depending on who could make it that time. After the first of this group got to be a bishop, within about seven years, almost all the bishops in the stake were part of this group of golfing buddies. Inspiration about who is most qualified, or the good of boys club? I wasn’t as bothered about it as I should have been, because we got two great bishops, … but……someone should have raised a stink somewhere in the stake, because I am sure not all of them were as great as the three or four that I knew personally.
@Jack Hughes. I also have a friend who is bishop, both brothers are bishops and their Dad was a stake president. Admittedly they are all very grounded guys. I went skiing the other year with them. They are spread across three stakes and had a wide variety of opinions about the challenges facing members at the moment. It feels like this family resonates with Eli’s view. Just a bunch of nice guys that are happy and willing to serve.
There have been times where I see someone called and I wonder whether it is because of their family because they generally seemed a bit wet. But these callings tend to sift dynamic people anyway.
Yes, the Church system tends to promote conformists who praise their superiors and weed out everyone else. What’s surprising, I suppose, is how many really good bishops and stake presidents we end up with, despite the bureaucratic bias in the system. If the LDS system doesn’t produce many leadership superstars, at least it has a deep bench. In most wards or stakes, there are several good candidates for bishop or SP at any given time.
But the chickens come home to roost in upper leadership. Leadership by consensus, oldest guy at the top, we never make mistakes … that sort of mentality leads to an organization that, over time, just gets gradually less energetic, less effective, less focused, less relevant. It’s hard to see how to change that dynamic with the present apostolic system.
It is frustrating that the men with successful , white collar, professions are tapped for leadership but these same qualities in women effectively bar them from leadership and sometimes even a teaching calling. (Don’t want them influencing the young and impressionable)
@Faithful Career Woman I know that’s true in some areas and is unfair; it’s not been the case for me. I’ve held all sorts of leadership callings while working professionally full-time. The only difference for me is that of course I always report to a man, no matter our relative qualifications for whatever it is we’re doing, and that the time I spend on my calling is not remotely helpful for professional networking (unlike for many LDS men). Indeed my church connections in general have never been helpful to me professionally because my male church peers do not see me as a professional or seem to care one bit about my professional life. But now I’ve gone all off-topic so I’ll stop there.
Great post Bishop Bill! I’ll harbor a much stronger belief in the truthfulness of the institutional church when we have a retired plumber, fire fighter or high school teacher become a senior GA or apostle. Apparently the “who the lord calls, he qualifies” doesn’t apply at all levels, or we’d have a farmer in the Q15.
Also wanted to mention the notion of career success that I’ve frequently heard from stake leaders in my area. The idea is that if you succeed in your career and get to a comfortable income at a relatively young age, that’s the lord making it happen so that you can put your career on autopilot, still get paid nicely, and have extra capacity to serve in leadership callings. While I understand the logic behind that to an extent, reading it the opposite way implies that only those who achieve a comfortable living by their early 30s qualify for those callings.
Disclaimer: I don’t aspire to be a bishop or beyond. Was a bishopric counselor for several years and has a good insight into the calling of bishop. Not sure why anyone in their right mind would want it.
My wife is a member of the same 10 people club and has done the rounds on the ward level now. As RS, Primary and YW pres she frequently despaired at the lack of joined up thinking, ill-prepared WCs or general slowness of action in the bishopric.
I think of the women that serve in my ward (UK) and stake and it doesn’t seem that career drives have been a barrier to callings. Although as I am typing this I am checking my biases on so many levels.
I also like the idea of having leaders with more training in social sciences. Ethan mentioned the need for greater diversity in professional/vocational background in our leaders, and it seems that it would be beneficial to have leaders who understand psychology, social issues, sociology, climate issues, economic justice, and more. Church could be more relevant to our lives of we had leaders who understood these issues with greater depth and influenced curriculum and policies accordingly.