The Torah speaks of a certain donor class in our parshah. We read of how the Jewish people (for perhaps the first and only time) eagerly donated to the Tabernacle-building campaign, giving gold, silver, and other precious materials so enthusiastically that Moses had to tell them to stop donating (certainly the first and last time!). After listing the various gifts, the Torah tells us about the last group to come forth: “And the Princes brought the shoham stones and filling stones for the ephod and for the choshen; and the spice and the oil for lighting and for the anointing oil, and for the incense.”
Why did the Princes, of all people, donate last? What were they waiting for?
Rashi fills in some interesting background information, telling us that the Princes said to themselves, “Let the community donate what they will donate, and whatever they are missing we will complete.” A noble sentiment, to be sure, but alas, the fundraising campaign went so well, there was barely anything left to donate by the time their turn came around.
Rashi concludes, “Since they were lazy about it, a letter is missing from their name, and the Hebrew word for ‘Princes’ is written without the usual yud.”
This is all quite troubling. Read the script again: The Princes weren’t sitting on their couches taking a nap; they were being great leaders, nobly pledging to wait in the wings while everyone did their thing and then come in and fill in the gaps. If you’ve ever run a campaign before, you well know the value of the “clean up guy”—that committed member who’s willing to step in at the end and finish the work no matter what it entails. So why are we calling them “lazy” and hacking a letter from their title?
What did they do wrong?
They were too busy being “good leaders.” Sometimes, the best leader is not the one who’s concerned with being a good leader, but the one who actually leads.
The Jewish people had just committed what is arguably our people’s gravest sin: the Golden Calf debacle. They had infuriated their Creator, lost many members, and were jittery about their chances of ever regaining grace. The Tabernacle was an important piece to this puzzle, they had been informed that its construction and subsequent service would atone for their heinous sin.
You can imagine just how anxious they were to get the job over and done with. Sure enough, as soon as Moses launched the campaign, the Jewish people shot out like cannonballs to bring it to fruition, feverishly gathering the materials and lining up the construction crew.
As leaders, the Princes should have sensed their anxiety. The suave leadership skills they displayed by pledging to be the clean-up guys may be great advice for your next leadership book, but when there’s an entire nation anxiously biting their nails to regain G‑d’s grace, what’s the first thing you do when word gets out that hope is on the way? You jump into the trenches and get working. Leave the calculated leadership skills for next time and get the job done. Right now.
Their intentions were noble, but it wasn’t the call of that particular hour.
Indeed, the next time around, when the Tabernacle was dedicated months later, the Princes learned their lesson: they jumped in and donated first.
In the wonderful information age we live in today, there’s so much out there on any given topic. And with such insight so readily available, it seems absurd (not to mention foolish) to tackle anything without detailed research and strategic planning.
But sometimes the call of the hour is to “just do it.” This plethora of information has created a reverse problem of paralyzing us into inaction, always whispering into our ears that we’re not planning things well enough, that we need to master more skills and mock up more vision boards before proceeding.
Resist that urge and just jump in. If there’s someone anxiously waiting for you, leave your desire to be the most effective executive behind and just help them. It’s not always about you. It’s actually never about you. It’s about the job, the task at hand.
Let’s not fall into the seductive trap of trying to be a good leader. Rather, focus on good leadership. And if that requires you to buck conventional rules about “effective leadership,” well, you know what to do.
-adapted from www.chabad.org
