The Peril of the Changing Paradigm

I believe that the most pressing leadership issue for today is the failure to comprehend the changing paradigm of leadership as it relates to the emerging culture and the expectations of followers with respect to greater participation and integration in decision making, as well as, autonomy in the execution of their roles. In short, the hierarchical structure of the human pyramid has become archaic in a postmodern society. Unfortunately some of the people at the top of the pyramid haven’t received the memo yet and their organizations are suffering because of it.

William Bridges, in “Leading the De-Jobbed Organization”, observes that the leadership model of the future will require flexibility and adaptability in a culture of rapidly changing tastes and preferences. The hierarchical structure inherently inhibits this type of response. Instead, a team approach in which leadership is shared and in which teams are given the freedom to respond is preferable. In this model, says Bridges, “Leadership passes back and forth from person to person as the phases of the project succeed one another and different skills become critical”(1996, 15). He posits that it is time to break out of the “job” boxes and climb down from the pyramid to engage leadership at a foundational level and in a collegial fashion.

In postmodern society pluralism is often viewed as god and the idea that one man or woman at the peak of some self-serving pyramid as “the source” of all wisdom, direction, and doctrine is being rejected (Phillips 2001). Instead, many perspectives are honored and members of the organization insist on having their voice heard. They want to be on the team, and if the situation calls for it, to be allowed to lead the team.

This is a pressing issue, in that, the old wineskins are not receptive to the new wine and old structures are crumbling. GM and Ford, two paragons of the old system, are laying-off tens of thousands of people and closing many factories across North America. What is wrong? The structure of leadership has not been able to respond quickly enough to changing dynamics of the economy or the growing cost of petroleum or health care issues. GM and Ford continued to roll out SUV’s even as the clouds of exploding oil prices were looming on the horizon. Instead of an entrepreneurial spirit that was willing to break with the pack and chart a course for the future, they stayed the course and the course led them down the road to disaster. Somewhere, someone at the top of the pyramid was making a series of ill-advised choices and at the bottom of this pyramid workers were busy doing their jobs and doing them well while the industry they were depending on was failing (CNNMoney 2005).

There is a new leadership model that is emerging out of the old structures. Jimmy Long contrasts the “Modern” with the “Emerging” leadership paradigm. The Emerging paradigm is the cultural response to Postmodernism. It is in flux, developing and evolving in response to rapidly changing social and cultural realities. Long’s analysis is illustrated in the table below:

MODERN
Individual leader
Task
Positional authority
Perfect leader
Building Structures
Control
Destination
Aspire to leadership

EMERGING
Team leadership
Community
Earned authority
Broken leader
Developing vision
Empower
Journey
Inspire for leadership

Table 1: Modern and Emerging Leadership Styles (Long 2004, 157)

If Long is right in his analysis of the Emerging model of leadership, then the old wineskins will be bursting and both the skins and the wine will be lost. Along with factories and industries succumbing to these changes, churches and denominations are in peril as well. Unless leadership can be shared, can be decentralized and the periphery empowered to be responsive to the needs of the customer, consumer, client, congregant, or community, then implosion is inevitable simply because of our inability to comprehend the changing paradigm of leadership.

Frances Hesselbein unapologetically asserts:

The old hierarchy is dead. We must build flexible, fluid, circular management structures with high involvement and inclusion of all—structures that permit us to lead people and not to contain them (2005).

In light of this crisis, it seems to me that the most pressing issue for leadership is to begin to provide new models that are less rigid and more fluid with respect to leadership in an organization. This, of course, challenges the very core of what many have presupposed as the model and method of leadership. The heroic figure who rides in on a white horse to save the day is now a member of a posse that works together to accomplish the goals. (According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary a posse is, among other things, “1. a large group often with a common interest.") These goals are common to all in the group and each has a vested interest in seeing those goals accomplished.

What does leadership look like in this paradigm? To begin, it is a leadership that is willing and able to empower the posse, to equip the saints for the work of ministry. I suspect that this is the secret behind the success of mega-churches in America today. It is not so much the charisma or the persona of the senior pastor as much as it is the opportunity for members of these churches to get involved in semi-autonomous ministries that are given the freedom to function without being micromanaged by some hierarchical figurehead. The size of these churches necessitate this transition and the leadership genius of the pastors is simply that they were willing to provide a broad structural or missional framework within which freedom for ministry innovations were encouraged. I suspect that in many such churches there is a genuine entrepreneurial spirit with respect to initiating ministries as outreaches of the church.

Looking at the plethora of programs in these churches it is soon apparent that one man cannot control all these ministries. He or she simply provides the context for and the possibility of these ministries to exist within the larger vision of the church. The senior pastor becomes the pastor of pastors or the leader of leaders who have the freedom and the authority to initiate, improvise, innovate, and create.

What is the leader’s role in all this? It is empowering and encouraging rising leaders. It is to recognize the leadership strengths in others and to be humble enough to defer to the expertise and skill that others bring to the team. There may be one man who stands on the stage and is recognized by the outsider as the leader, but he knows and others within the organization know, that he is but one of many leaders and that the future of the organization is in raising up even more leaders.

What about the old saying, “Too many cooks in the kitchen”? This old saying may have held true for mom’s kitchen, or for a mom and pop restaurant that needed few innovations and even fewer hands in the pot, but walk into a major restaurant and we find that there are many chefs and many cooks working in a coordinated effort to get the best product that is possible to the patron in the shortest amount of time with the most pleasant service possible. Small churches where one pastor is expected to do it all will remain small churches. But growing churches will require more leadership, more involvement, more empowerment and even more autonomy among the members to become the ministers that God called them to be.

Jim Collins, in Good to Great, observed that the leaders of organizations that emerged from the middle of the pack and began to excel in their respective field, were leaders who exhibited what he calls “level 5 leadership”. These are not the brash, cocky, ambitious leaders of fiction, but are a blend of “personal humility with intense professional will (2001, 21).”

Of course, as is always the case with regard to human endeavors we find that God’s ways are indeed the best ways. Apostle Peter, a man who learned some valuable lessons about teamwork, gives us this inspired insight, “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5:6, NKJV).

Sources Cited

Bridges, William. “Leading the De-Jobbed Organization.” In The Leader of the Future, edited by Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith and Richard Beckhard, 11-18. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

Hesselbein, Frances. “The Campaign for Leadership.” Leader to Leader Institute, no 17 (Summer 2000). http://pfdf.org/leadersbooks/L2L/summer2000/fh.html. Accessed November 30, 2005.

CNNMoney.com. “GM CEO says shakeup means slowdown.” December 12, 2005. http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/12/news/fortune500/ gm_wagoner.reut/index.htm. Accessed December 16, 2005.

Collins, Jim. Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Long, Jimmy. Emerging Hope. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=posse. Accessed December 15, 2005.

Phillips, Gary. “Religious Pluralism in a Postmodern World.” In The Challenge of Postmodernism, edited by David S. Dockery, 131-143. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

WHEN TO LEAVE, HOW TO STAY

We know from many studies of successful churches that long-term pastors have a much better track record of producing long-term success and seeing the vision fulfilled than short term pastors have. However, there inevitably comes a time when a change in leadership is needed. It may be that a leader has come to the end of his or her expertise and feels that they do not have the ability to take the organization to the next stage in its growth. It may be that leader has simply lost his passion for the position and doesn’t have the fire in his bones to continue to fight the good fight. Or, it may be the opportunity for a promotion and to rise to another level of leadership potential.

John Maxwell has said that everything rises and falls with leadership. If the leader has lost her passion then the lack of passion becomes palpable throughout the organization. Goleman calls it “dissonance” (Primal Leadership). A leader who simply cannot refuel and refire may decide that the good of the organization is at stake and that leadership change is needed.

I remember resigning from my first church. In that case I felt as though I had reached the limits of my experience and capability. The church had grown to over 140 and at the time that seemed large. It was the largest church I had ever attended and I was the pastor. Though I had a Master of Divinity degree I felt that I needed to work on staff in a much larger church. I felt that I needed the experience and when the opportunity came to join the staff of a church with a membership of over a thousand, I resigned the church and moved to Georgia.

I’ll never forget the weight of that decision. I remember watching one of our members leaning forward on the pew in front of her and crying as I made the announcement. I watched her tears run down the back of the pew she had been leaning on and I wondered if I was making the right choice. I second guessed myself many times, but in retrospect I believe I can say that I made the right decision for my ministry. The time I spent on staff at the larger church was only eighteen months, but the experience I gained there has proven as valuable to me as the years of education I received in seminary.

I recently read an article on leadership in which the author argued that people need to change positions—either within the organization or out of the organization—every two years to remain motivated and creative. I don’t think that necessarily applies to being a senior pastor or the CEO of a company, but every leader should exercise an honest assessment of his or her passion for the position. If the fire is low and if he or she cannot stir up their gift of leadership then they need to think about what would benefit the organization most.

The truth is that too many leaders are willing to just hang on until they retire. I’ve watched men take a church or a business down to nothing rather than release the reigns to someone else with fire and vision. Where there is no vision the people perish. Leaders without vision are like a ship without a rudder. They just go with the flow and the people they lead become frustrated and angry. Jesus never lost track of the mission and He never lost His passion for the purpose. (Interestingly though, Jesus’ earthly ministry was about two years in duration.)

If you are a leader and the passion is waning then either do whatever you have to do to regain the fire, or resign. How do you regain the fire? Get a BHAG. In his book Built to Last Jim Collins found that the businesses that succeeded were the businesses that had BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goals). If you’re not going to resign, then get a big vision that stretches your faith and causes you to rely on God’s strength and not your own. Make it a sink or swim goal that will not allow you the luxury of laziness and complacency. Let it be something that will excite the members and inspire them to dream about the possibilities.

God can do much more than we ever endeavor to do in our own strength, but we have not because we ask not. He is able to do exceeding, abundantly, above all that we ask or think, and yet we have these little pansy plans that require little faith and can be accomplished in our own strength so that, just in case God doesn’t show up, we won’t fail.

If you have no passion and you need some fire, find your BHAG! Believe biblically, believe big, and believe bold, but believe that there is more that God can do and wants to do when you are willing to trust and obey Him. And if you can’t do that, then maybe it’s time to step aside and make way for someone who has the fire.

LEADING THROUGH CHANGE

Leaders are not intimidated by change. In fact, leaders are rarely brought in to maintain status quo. This is usually done by managers. A manager is called upon to manage the resources and personnel, to execute the business of the organization. Leaders are asked to do more than that. Leaders are called upon to take the organization to new places, to greater heights, from the moment to the future. Since the future has not happened yet, this requires more than managing what resources are currently on hand, but requires a vision for what can be, what is possible, and where we need to go. Leaders do not run from change but embrace it as a part of their agenda.

Leading a church or organization through change is both a curse and a blessing. It is a wonderful opportunity to pursue the vision, but it is a challenge to get others who have a vested interest in status quo to embrace the vision with you. John’s Gospel tells us that Jesus “came unto his own, and his own received him not” (1:11).

The religious system was broken. It wasn’t working. Not that a faulty system had been instituted, but faulty humanity would not adhere to the covenant stipulations, and then added man-made rules to a covenant that they had not been able to maintain to begin with. The system had to be changed. The future lay not in more rules, but in grace so Jesus came to lead humanity into a new day. But there were those who would not receive Him. They would not embrace the vision and instead violently rejected Him. Not much of an endorsement for leadership, is it?

The next verse, however, tells us that there were some who did see what He saw and who were willing to risk everything to follow the Leader-- “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (Jn. 1:12). Jesus empowered the people who could see the vision and who would trust Him to lead them into the future.

There are several lessons here for leading change:

First, there will be some who reject the change, even when it is for the good of the organization. The chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees were happy with the way things were. In this system they were empowered even though the masses were disenfranchised. These powerbrokers rejected Jesus and led in having Him crucified. However, in doing so they were unwittingly participating in the plan of God. Hopefully, we will not be called upon to be crucified as a leader of an organization, though personal sacrifice is often necessary.

Second, we learn that we have to have a vision that can be seen by those who want to follow. They cannot follow if they sense that we do not know where we are going. Jesus told them that this change would call for new wineskins, new methods and models. John the Baptist declared that “even now the ax is laid to the roots” and a new generation of believers was about to be birthed. (Lk. 3:9-10).

Third, we see that Jesus was willing to empower those who believed, those who were willing to follow Him. They were empowered during His time on earth. He sent them into towns and villages to heal the sick and cast out devils and to declare that change was coming, “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 10). But Jesus also empowered them to continue to take the vision forward after His departure: “You shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Ac. 1:8).

There are various theories and models for the process of change. For example, Hegel saw all of history through a series of three movements: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This is called the Hegelian Dialectic. According to him the current state of affairs in history is the thesis. In time, however, this thesis will be challenged by a competing perspective (government, culture, religion, worldview, etc.) which will offer a new direction. This is the antithesis of the thesis. Rarely, if ever, does the antithesis supplant the thesis wholesale. Instead, there is a give and take between thesis and antithesis and what emerges is a combination of the two into a synthesis. In time, this new state of affairs becomes the thesis and the process begins all over again.

For example, in Iraq we had a Muslim lead dictatorship. After the war the country was introduced to the concept of democracy. What is emerging is a combination of Muslim control with certain democratic rights within the paradigm of Islam.

In pastoring I have gone into churches that were fixed in an older traditional style of worship with which the senior members of the congregation were comfortable. The younger members were ready for contemporary praise and worship. I was called upon to lead the church forward. The reality was that there was no way we could stay where we were and hope to move forward, but there was going to be resistance to radical wholesale change. I attended a worship seminar by Robert Webber in which he proposed the idea of blended worship. He said that it is possible to maximize the best of both styles of worship and honor both the older and the younger generations. So that is what we did. We developed a blended worship style—thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

One might argue that this is the process of change that Jesus used. He came with a radically new idea but He incorporated just enough of Judaism to make the transition possible for the early Jewish believers. There are some now who are attempting to introduce more of the Jewish religious practices into Christianity because they believe that this was the intent of Jesus and that it was only after Constantine that Judaism was divorced from Christianity.

I’m not sure about that, in that, the idea of an ax to the roots is rather dramatic. The Apostle Paul acknowledges the connection of the new branches to the old vine, but at the same time he reject attempts to infuse Christianity with Jewish religious practices such as diets, circumcision, holy days, etc.

Another paradigm of change also uses a three step model: orientation, disorientation, re-orientation. The difference between this paradigm and that of Hegel is that it doesn’t see synthesis as a necessary outcome. It suggests that radical change may be needed and may result in a new direction that is almost completely divorced from the previous. In orientation we are oriented toward a certain direction, certain cultural patterns and practices, certain rituals and rites with which we are familiar. But at some point this orientation is no longer effective in maintaining the institution, organization, or church. The culture begins to decline, the institution begins to fail, organization loses money, the church attendance falls and leadership recognizes that something has to be done.

As always, there are those who have an interest in maintaining. In time, however, the masses realize that there is a need for change. The masses in the society, the workers on the floor, or the people in the pews begin to see that something needs to be done and they want a leader with a vision.

The next stage, disorientation, is the most dangerous. The leader has a plan, a radical plan for change and in the process of instituting that change people are disoriented, old practices and rituals are no longer applicable and people struggle to understand and apply new ideas, new practices and applications. Some will want to go back to Egypt. Some will revolt against the leader and seek to undermine his or her authority. Some will react violently as they try to unseat the leadership. But if the vision is clear and the majority understands the need for change and the direction of the change proposed, they will follow.

I heard Pastor Marty Baker talk about changes he instituted at the church he pastors. His church seemed to be doing well. With an attendance of over 300 it was above average and considered by many pastors to be a good church. But Marty felt that maintaining was not what he was called to do. He was called to lead so he proposed change. In fact, he did not seek synthesis, but a completely new orientation in the way they did church. He said that as he led the church into that change there was a period of time where it was very painful for him personally and he asked the Lord more than once if he had heard the Him correctly. Many people left and the church attendance declined. This was a painful period of disorientation. In time, though, as the changes were instituted and the church changed from a traditional worship format to a multi-media approach, the church began to grow. They are now re-oriented to this new approach and the attendance is almost double that of what it was before he led the church to change.

Managers may maintain, and may even be rewarded and admired for doing so, but leaders lead. They take the organization into the future and as such must be able to embrace change, provide a vision, empower others, and more forward. It may be a synthesis, or it may be reorientation, but change is inevitable. As one man said, “Lead, follow or get out of the way!”

TEAM BONDING

I'd like to go back to the subject of the team. When a church leader looks at the church staff as a team, instead of as employees, it does something. First of all, it fosters camaraderie. In a team, there is a sense of interdependency. We are all counting on one another for the good of the whole. Second, it casts the role of the leader in a different light. Instead of being the “boss” he or she takes on the role of a coach, an encourager and a mentor.

The coaching paradigm has become popular in recent leadership writing and I think it is applicable from a Christological perspective. Jesus built a team, He coached them and then He put them in the game.

Having participated in both team and individual sports in high school and college, I’ve found that there is a distinct dynamic involved with team sports that is not there in individual sports. In individual sports, such as wrestling, I had a coach but my success as a wrestler had very little to do with how the other members of the wrestling team did. In fact, I recall one meet where I was the only one on the team who won a match. While I felt bad for them, it did nothing to diminish my personal success. I was the only one on my wrestling team to qualify for the state tournament and I finished second. I would have liked for the others have gone with me, but their absence did not prevent my success.

A team is different. In a team there is a symbiotic and even a synergistic relationship between the team members. The whole team is greater than the sum of the parts. In football I was a running back and I depended on the line, the quarterback and even the other backs to do their part. When they did well, I did well and thus, we did well.

One of the things I have observed in watching teams from various sports is that teams that have cohesiveness and esprit de corps are much more likely to have success than those who don’t. Teams who are fragmented and fighting are ineffective and will become more of a detriment than an asset.

So how do we get a team to bond? We can choose the people with which to build the team, but unless they bond, unless there is a cohesiveness to the team, then it is a mere exercise in futility. The website “teamtechnology” gives three stages in team building, which I would see as essential to team bonding: 1) clarify the team goals, 2) identify the issues which inhibit the team from reaching those goals, and 3) address those issues, remove the inhibitors and enable the goals to be achieved. Simple, right?

I think these three points speak to the heart of the issue of leadership. The coach of the team helps to clarify for the team what the objective is and establishes that it is in the best interest of everyone on the team to achieve that goal. The cohesiveness of the team will determine the extent to which individuals will be able to lay aside personal agendas and work for the good of the team.

The word “clarify” is important here. A team may have a vague idea of what the goal is, but lack of clarity (vision) creates unnecessary confusion with respect to direction. It is the role of the leader to clarify the goal. It isn’t enough to tell a team we need to increase productivity. The team may need to be told that the third shift of the organization is bringing down overall production ratios and we want this team to work specifically on identifying some of the reasons why this is so, and make suggestions as to how these reasons can be addressed so as to bring production ratios up on the third shift.

Something that frustrates a team is to be given goals and then to find that achieving those goals is inhibited by institutional factors. Going back to the illustration of the third shift, the team will be inhibited if it cannot observe third shift employees at work, or talk with them anonymously to gain their perspectives on why production is lower on third shift. If there is an institutional barrier, such as only allowing a certain amount of coffee breaks per shift--when third shift would be more productive with an extra break (which seems counterintuitive)--then being told that no changes will be made on this issue will only frustrate the team and inhibit them from reaching the stated goal.

So the third element must be employed as well, that is, “remove inhibitors and enable goals to be achieved.” A team that is given the freedom to be creative and innovative is more likely to work together cohesively than a team that is given rigid structures and is not given the liberty to initiate new options to old problems. Jim Collins says that good to great companies learned to give teams “freedom within framework.” They were given the freedom to pursue goals as long as they did not compromise the core values or primary purpose of the organization. These core values and purpose were clearly defined and understood going into the project.

In Scripture Jesus gave His disciples a clear vision, “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19-20). For the Jews there was an institutional barrier, that being, that the Jews had nothing to do (or as little as possible) with non-Jewish people. Peter was going to be sent to the house of Cornelius to preach the gospel to them, but Peter could not envision such a thing in light of the restrictions of his culture and former religion. So God prepared Peter for this task by speaking to Peter in a dream. In this dream Peter was told to eat certain animals that were not considered kosher. Peter refused to eat these animals because in the law and in his culture these animals were considered “common” or ritually unclean. A voice in the dream told Peter, “What God has cleansed, don’t you call common” Acts 10:15). The metaphor was clear and an institutional barrier was removed so that Peter and the team Jesus had built were released to pursue the goal. Cornelius and his entire household were led to faith in Christ, and the leadership of the church embraced the commission to go to all people with the gospel.

In many local churches there are local institutional barriers that inhibit the team from pursuing the vision. Often these barriers are identified by words such as: ”We’ve never done that here before.” Or, “We’ve always done it this way.” When these barriers are constantly lifted up every time a team has an innovative and creative approach to reach the vision, it is only a matter of time until the team becomes frustrated and fragmented.

There is nothing more powerful for bringing a team together than a clearly defined vision that challenges the team to greater heights. But this is only true when they are coached in the area where they are expected to excel, and are empowered to pursue the goal. After two years of mentoring and training His disciples, and before He ascended, Jesus told His team, “You shall receive power” (Acts 1:8). They were trained, given clear a clarified goal, and empowered to reach that goal. There’s a lesson here for every leader.

PURSUING PERFECTION WITHOUT GOING CRAZY

In many of the books I’ve read about leadership, there is the recurring theme of a commitment to excellence. There is a drive in effective leaders to press toward perfection in all that they do. They will not be satisfied with the organization, the staff, or themselves if excellence is not the standard mode of operation.

We know that Jesus was perfect. He was without sin. He was flawless, and He is our example, the model for our lives, and the context for our conduct. Furthermore, we know that Jesus expected that His disciples would pursue perfection in their lives as well. Jesus said, “In John 13:15, “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” In Matthew 5:48 He said, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” So here’s the rub, how do we achieve a healthy balance when the fact is that we are all flawed and imperfect humans who are seeking to live up to the standard of excellence set by a perfect person? Won’t this lead to frustration and failure? Doesn’t it set us up for a fall?

I was reading an article in Ministries Today Magazine (Nov./Dec. 2005) entitled, “Perfectly Unhealthy” in which author Richard Winter addressed the difference between the healthy pursuit of perfection and an unhealthy perfectionist. He said that there are two sides to perfectionism. There is the “Adaptive, positive, healthy, constructive” side, which is marked by:

• High standards—(knows what those standards are)
• Good self-esteem—(is secure in him/herself)
• Strive for excellence—(is always pressing toward the mark)
• Realistic of failures—(is not afraid to fail forward when reaching toward excellence)
• Organized—(realizes that excellence begins with the leader)
• Energy and enthusiasm—(is excited about excellence and enthuses others)

But then there is also the other side of perfectionism:

• Unrealistically high standards (for self and others)
• Low self-esteem—(never feeling good enough)
• Seek to excel at any cost—(will sacrifice relationships and/or integrity)
• Generalize failure—(if one thing fails, then everything was wrong)
• Controlling—(cannot delegate or trust others to get it right)
• Exhausted and exhausting—(is mentally and physically fatigued and causes mental and emotional fatigue in others)

Too many leaders fail to find the balance between “neurotic perfectionism” at one end of the spectrum, and “non-perfectionism” at the other. Jesus understood the predicament of humanity and while He set the mark for the prize, He was also a patient teacher and mentor to those He would eventually delegate the mission to.

Leaders who fail to find this balance live frustrated and unfulfilled lives. If they do not pursue excellence, then chances are that they will never achieve success. But if they become neurotically obsessed with perfection then nothing will ever be good enough and they will not only live anxiety plagued lives, but they will also make the lives of everyone around them miserable as well.

Jesus knew that Peter was going to deny Him but Jesus did not give up on Peter. Jesus called Peter, with all his imperfections, and then used Peter in a powerful way in building the church. Pursuing perfection or excellence is an ongoing journey, not a destination in this life. While we maintain excellence in all we do, we cannot allow the little flaws to foil the journey.

In the past I have been guilty of focusing more on what goes wrong than on what goes right. One mix-up in the power-point, one mispronounced word, one wrong note on an instrument, one squeal in the sound system, and I would be bothered for the rest of the day. I’ve come to learn that something is likely to be less than perfect during a worship service, but on this journey I no longer allow every flaw to be fatal. I take note and then later look at how we can do better next time.

Some flaws are one time anomalies which serve to point out how well things usually go. Any recurring issue needs to be address and corrected as we continue to press toward excellence. Just as it is a mistake to obsess over every miscue, it is also wrong look over problems that can and should be corrected. With a healthy perfectionist there will be an energetic and enthusiastic drive to do better next time. With an unhealthy perfectionist there will be finger pointing, fault-finding, blame gaming and shaming.

Jesus was definitely a healthy perfectionist. He lived the perfect life and set an example for us all to follow, but Jesus was also ready to work with His disciples and to pick them back up if they stumbled. Jesus called Peter to the team but Peter denied Christ in the courtyard while Jesus was standing before His accusers. Thankfully, that was not the final scene with Jesus and Peter. In John’s Gospel we see Jesus talking with Peter, giving Peter a chance to reaffirm his love for Jesus, and then re-commissioning Peter to minister to the people of God.

If we will not pursue excellence, then we will never achieve great results as a leader and we do not reflect the character of Christ. However, if we generalize every failure, succumb to defeat with every miscue, or bring unrealistic expectation to our team, then we will never achieve long-term success as a leader. Jesus challenged us to take the journey toward perfection. He gave us the example and set the mark, but we must be willing to press toward perfection even while making positive corrections to the imperfections as we go.

TEAM BUILDING

Instead of a pyramid shaped structure for their relationship, Jesus humbled Himself, took on the form of flesh, and came down to where we are as humanity. He was in all points tempted like as we are. But Jesus went even further, He wrapped a towel around His waist and washed the feet of His disciples. Then He challenged them to do the same thing. He never denied that He was the Master, but His point was that if the Rabbi would wash the feet of the disciples, then surely the disciples should be willing to wash one another’s feet. This was to be a team, not a hierarchy.

Jesus had individually called each of the twelve men who would be his apostles. I’ve previously addressed the diversity and the “process paradigm,” but anyone who has served in a leadership position for any length of time knows the importance of getting the right people in the right places at the right times for the right reasons. Jesus was able to build a team of leaders who were so dedicated to the mission that they were willing to lay down their lives in pursuit of accomplishing His will. As a team they were willing to lay down personal agendas and work together to accomplish the task that Jesus had given them.

As a leader who has the responsibility of hiring and firing personnel, it is very important to understand that is easier to get the right people in the right place than it is to try to transform the wrong people into the right people, or to move someone from the wrong place to the right place.

When I came to the church where I currently serve, I had very little experience with hiring and firing. I had hired one additional staff member at each of my previous two pastorates, but upon arriving at this church I found that the every staff member and administrative personnel had either resigned or had been fired before the previous pastor himself resigned. So I came into the church with limited experience in the very area where there was the greatest immediate need. Over the next four years I learned by trial and error.

Jesus had the ability to look into the heart of man and He could see something in a man that others could not see. As a leader, then, we must always pray for and seek His guidance in making these decisions. I’ve found that the Holy Spirit often tweaks our spirit with those proverbial “red flags” and unfortunately, I’ve too often been guilty of pressing through those flags and making mistakes.

When the church council interviewed me concerning the potential of coming to the church as the senior pastor they asked me which position I would hire first. I stated that the first need was the administrative assistant. My experience is that a leader must be free to lead and not become bogged down in paperwork and number crunching. At my first pastorate we did not have a secretary and I often spent hour upon hour balancing books, writing cards, sending letters, scheduling events and so on.

Fortunately, this church had already hired an interim administrative assistant who was very committed to the success of the church and was well liked by the congregation. I agreed to allow her to continue in her position.

Next, the council wanted to know what ministry staff position I would hire. I said that the next person I would hire would be the minister of music. My reasoning was that aside from the senior pastor the music minister would be the most visible staff member and that praise and worship was the lifeblood of the Sunday morning service. Instead, of going with my instinct, I felt pressured to hire a children’s pastor first. I have no regrets about hiring this individual. He has done and continues to do a good job. He is a right person in the right place. However, the sequence of hiring was skewed. It tied up funds and made hiring the right music minister more difficult. In the meantime I began by playing and leading worship myself before hiring a succession of two other individuals who, while certainly capable people, were not the right fit for this church.

I was eager to get out of the position myself, so I hired too quickly. The first had the technical skills but lacked people skills. The second had an evangelistic fervor, but little technical skills and no vision for the church music program. I hired him with the understanding that his stay with us would be of a short duration while he pursued pastoral opportunities. It wasn’t until the third hire in three years that I found a man who had great people skills, had a powerful vision for the music ministry and had the skills necessary to lead the choir. In him we found the right person for the right position.

It would have been much easier on me and the church if I had followed my instincts from the beginning and made this position a priority from the start. Further, I realize in hindsight that I should have taken more time, should have watched them work with people, and should have done more background research before hiring anyone.

Building a great team begins with choosing the right people. Jesus chose carefully and, yes, even Judas was chosen for the role he would play. This doesn’t excuse him for his failure, but also does not suggest that Jesus made a mistake in bringing Judas onto the team. Jesus brought in the right people, at the right time and put them in the right place. That the church survived the crucifixion, the resurrection and ascension of the leader of the movement is testimony to the effectiveness of the team in taking the mission forward. It reveals that Jesus had built a great team to accomplish a great commission.

Charisma versus Character

Often when we think of a great leader we have in mind the larger than life caricatures of men and women whose lives and feats have become the stuff of legend. In the war movies of the 50’s, the political movies of the 60’s, the business movies of the 70’s and so on the great leader was someone with great charisma and presence. They were people who commanded attention, demanded respect, and inspired confidence. They were focused, vocal, direct and controlling. They were, to some extent, heroic figures that saved the day by the shear force of their own unyielding will. In the face of those caricatures many of us may well conclude that we may not have what it takes to be a great leader.

In contrast to those long-held stereotypes we have the prophetic description of Jesus:

2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
(Isa 53:2-3, NKJV)

This seems to be a far cry from the commonly held view of what a great leader should look like. In fact, when Jesus came to earth He “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7, KJV). How does a person become a great leader like that? It is even possible in our day?

The research of both Jim Collins and Thom Rainer provides some pretty conclusive evidence that this is exactly the type of leader that it will take to move a business or a church from good to great.

Thom Rainer, who studied "breakthrough churches", employed the model used by Jim Collins, whose research was focused on the businessess that went from "good to great". Collins admits that he and his team were surprised by some of their findings. The first surprise being that the businesses which broke out of mediocrity and achieved greatness were led by people who did not fit the stereotypical ideal of a great leader. He calls them “Level 5 leaders.” In contrast to the brash, self-assured, charismatic, leaders of fiction, these leaders were found to be “self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will” (Good to Great, pp. 12-13).

Rainer was surprised with similar findings in his study of the leadership of breakout churches. He calls these pastors “Acts 5/6 leaders.” The men (all the pastors in his study were male) who moved their church from plateau or decline, to breakthrough and growth, were leaders of character, humility, and even vulnerability. He states that these pastors were more “thin-skinned” than “thick-skinned.” Thick-skinned pastors allow criticism to bounce off without affecting them. They take congregational losses in stride and press on with little or no emotional side effect. But the Acts 5/6 leaders, the leaders of the breakthrough churches, were deeply affected by the loss of members and they were often personally wounded by criticism. The difference between these leaders and other thin-skinned leaders was that while they were wounded, they did not quit. They continued to lead and to believe that God could still use them to move the mission forward.

Collins said that one characteristic of the good to great businesses and their leaders was the willingness to apply, what he called, “the Stockdale Paradox: You must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever it might be” (p. 13).

Here is where good and great leaders are separated. This is the line of division, the place where the average and the excellent are delineated. The great leaders, like Jesus, face difficulties but they neither run from them nor bulldoze their way through them. Instead, they maintain unwavering faith that they will prevail in the end. One setback is not the finish. One conflict is not the fatal. One betrayal, one denial, or abandonment in the time of greatest turmoil is not the end. Faith in the outcome, in the triumph of the vision, the mission, or the goal keeps one from quitting or giving up.

This is not, however, a denial of reality, or the inability to see and understand the challenge ahead—this is the paradox. It is the ability to keep the faith and to continue on, but it is not a bullheaded “my way or the highway” approach. It is faith in the outcome while at the same time being disciplined enough to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever it might be.

I was on staff of a large church in our denomination. I came on staff shortly after the senior pastor arrived. While I was there I was given some background information on the church by some of the longtime members. It seems the church had been growing for several years and had been through several building programs, including moving three times to the current location. The facilities were beautiful and the programs were plentiful, but in the latter years of the previous pastor’s tenure the church had plateaued and was teetering on the brink of significant decline. At the request of the church council the pastor asked for a church consultant to come in and evaluate the church. At the end of the evaluation the report indicated that there was one weak link in the chain and that was the leadership of the senior pastor.

This was the brutal fact of their reality. The pastor had been there for a number of years and had led the church through a significant building program, but beyond the building he didn’t seem to have much of a vision. He was burnt-out and lacked the energy or the will to move beyond getting the building finished. He began to question himself and he lost faith in his own ability to lead the church forward, so he resigned.

Level 5 and Acts 5/6 leaders would have faced the brutal facts, would have sought personal coaching or personal revival, would have assessed thier own weaknesses and then would have hired people--with proficiencies in the areas of those weaknesses--to come on board and work with him. But good to great leaders and breakthrough leaders do not quit. Rainer found the average tenure of breakthrough pastors was just over 21 years—many times longer than the tenure of the average pastor.

Acts 5/6 leaders are more interested in the life, success and longevity of the church than they are in personal advancement or notoriety. For them, growing a church is not a means to an end in their personal professional life, but is an end in and of itself—to the extent that this growth represents souls won into the kingdom of God. Likewise, good to great leaders are motivated by the success of the company more than by having the spotlight shone upon themselves.

You may not have great personal charisma. You may not fit the caricature of the stereotypical great leader, but you may be able to develop the characteristics that both Collins and Rainer found to be indicative of great leaders. These very characteristics are found in Christ, and His character can be perfected in us as we endeavor to become more like Him.

Progress versus Program

It seems to me that far too many leaders are looking for the proverbial “magic bullet,” that one program or innovation that will take their organization from obscurity to outstanding almost overnight. This rarely happens. Instead, study after study shows that persistence and patience are the qualities that leaders of outstanding organizations or churches possess. Jim Collins, the author of Good to Great (New York: HarperBusiness, 2001) reflects upon his research in preparation for writing his book. He says, in an online audio clip:

We learned in Good to Great, that in building a great institution there is no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, no miracle moment. Rather, our research showed that it feels like turning a giant, heavy flywheel. Pushing with great effort, days, weeks, and months of work, with almost imperceptible progress, you finally get the flywheel to inch forward but you don’t stop. You keep pushing and pushing and with persistent effort you eventually get the flywheel to complete one giant slow turn. You don’t stop, you keep pushing in an intelligent and consistent direction and the flywheel moves a bit faster. You keep pushing and you get two turns, then four, then eight and the flywheel builds momentum, sixteen, you keep pushing, thirty-two, and it builds more momentum, a hundred, moving faster with each turn, a thousand, ten-thousand, a hundred thousand, then at some point, BANG!—breakthrough. (Jim Collins, “The Flywheel,” audio clip at http://www.jimcollins.com/hall/index.html, October 14, 2005).

Thom Rainer, in his book Breakthrough Churches (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), uses Collin’s methodology and applies it to a study of churches that have experienced breakthroughs. He observes that pastors of churches which have broken out of plateau or decline are pastors who have tenures that are much longer than average, and are men who just kept pushing. The statistics show that these men were often at a church for years before the turning point came and that it was not one program or miraculous revival that turned things around. Instead, it was commitment to the call, persistence in the face of adversity and patience in the face of panic. These men did not try to change the church overnight into something else, but they moved methodically in the direction they believed God was taking their church.

Having grown up in a Pentecostal church I have observed too many pastors and church members who believed that one great revival or employing the latest greatest innovation was going to miraculously transform their church into a thriving example of success. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Indeed, over time the failure of such hopes and claims have undermined the value of consistent and committed progress. The result has been cynicism and skepticism.

As Jim Collins states, the momentum for a breakthrough is like pushing a giant flywheel, it begins one inch at time before significant and self-sustaining momentum is attained.

Jesus began His public ministry at the age of 30 and for two years He walked the dusty roads of Judea preaching the message of the kingdom. At the time of His death He had only 11 loyal disciples and even they deserted Him in His moment of sacrifice. After the resurrection He appeared to five hundred, but only about one hundred and twenty obeyed Him and tarried in Jerusalem in anticipation of the coming empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

The beginnings of the church Jesus came to build were small and insignificant. He left a few people to carry the message and they faced extreme opposition, but two-thousand years later there are almost one billion people on the earth who claim the Christian faith. Jesus was wiling to move the flywheel one inch at a time. He was willing to go see one woman at a well, to heal one cripple at a pool, to lift one leper from his condition, and to touch the heart of one person at a time if necessary to illustrate the power of the kingdom, and to build His church.

Great leaders do not give up easily, and they are willing to move methodically toward the goal that they believe God has placed before them. Leaders who seem to appear suddenly on the stage of success have often worked in the shadows of obscurity for years before the flywheel began to move with the momentum that propelled the organization into greatness. It may begin with an inch, with slow steady growth, but progress in time becomes a powerful force that is hard to stop.

Wes Hardin is the senior pastor of the Word Vision Church of God in Macon, Georgia. In the winter of 2000-2001 the reports showed that the church averaged 264. In July 2005’s report the church showed an average of more than 570. I’ve known Wes for a few years now and I’ve watched the growth of the church. It didn’t happen all at once, but month by month with steady growth the church has continued to grow.

I recently saw Wes at a state function and asked him about the success of his church and in his quiet, soft-spoken, unassuming manner, he simply told me that they’ve been staying faithful and loving people and the church has continued to grow. It wasn’t an event, or a program, or a dynamic personality, but solid persistent and consistent leadership that has moved the flywheel an inch at a time. I believe the church has achieved momentum and in the months and years to come they will see even more significant growth. BANG! Breakthrough.

On the other hand, I watched a church explode in growth in just a few months from 100 to over 500. The pastor was featured in a prominent Christian magazine and became a speaker at some of our denominational meetings. Five years later the church, with the same pastor, is averaging less than 200 in worship attendance. Wes has never been featured in a major Christian magazine, but his church continues to grow. He is patient, persistence and consistent and the results are lasting.

Process verses Departmental Paradigm

I recently received a newsletter authored by Allen Ratta in Connection Power News (Oct. 11, 2005), and the title of the article was “Key Processes for Church Health: Part 8, Processes Thinking.” In this article Ratta expounds on an idea or a paradigm which I have had of ministry for years, but which I have never attempted to articulate until now. I think that his insights are germane to the topic of leadership and how a leader thinks. In fact, I think process thinking comes much closer to the mind of Christ than departmentalized thinking.

As Ratta points out, most church leaders have a mental image of the organizational structure of the church which is pictured in an organizational flow chart. This chart usually forms some type of pyramid (even if an inverted pyramid) that is ultimately broken down into departments. The theory is that if each department does a good job then the overall organization will grow. For example, if the Sunday School department, and the children’s ministry department, and the music department, and so on, grow, then the church cannot help but grow as well. The problem with this approach is that by its very nature it engenders unhealthy competition for scarce resources, territorialism, tunnel vision, and may even cause an adversarial spirit within the organization.

What is process thinking? Process thinking can be mapped out but the map reflects an “over-arching process” broken down into “sub-processes” which are tied to the “purposes” of the church. For example, as Ratta posits, an over-arching process of the church is “Congregant Acquisition.” This is accomplished through three sub-processes of “outreach, connection and integration.” As we can already see, these three processes transcend departments. The process map has as an implicit underlying goal, the integration, cooperation, and symbiosis of departments. Outreach is not a department, but is the unified goal of all departments to some degree, as are connection and integration.

I have thought about this paradigm with respect to Jesus’ leadership and it occurs to me that while organizational structure became more solidified and defined in the Epistles, Jesus’ approach was much more process than departmental. Jesus had an over-arching process: To bring salvation to the world through His sacrifice and to propagate that message through the church. But Jesus did not create departments to accomplish this. He held the children in His own arms and did not leave it to the children’s minister. He went to the woman at the well and did not leave this to the pastor of evangelism. He visited the sick and did not leave this to the pastor of visitation.

I am not suggesting that one man or woman can be all things to all people. Further, I do believe that there individual members to the body, each with a specific gift and ministry. However, Jesus’ life was lived as an example of the over-arching process. His life is a reflection of the “body”. Furthermore, the metaphor of the body as individual members tied to one another reinforces the process paradigm, in that, “the ear cannot say to the eye, I have no need of you.” The health of the body is facilitated by an integration of the parts and not by an accumulation of segregated, disjointed, and competing parts.

It is never an issue of me or you reaching an individual, but of us working in unity to see new members added to the body. Ratta asks this question, “While there are a lot of vested leaders watching the health of their departments, who is watching the health of your critical ministry processes?” Is it not the leaders? As the pastor of a church, or manager of a business, the leader must keep the over-arching process in the forefront.

For example, in budgeting each department often views the dollars in terms of their specific programs instead of a purpose that transcends their own department. Resources are limited and sometimes the competition within an organization, even a church, can become contentious. The leader, however, should remind all other leaders of various departments that there is an bigger picture in play. Further, that when we focus on the sub-processes and seek to work together to accomplish these in pursuit of the over-arching process, then the health of one part will translate into the health of all the parts for the benefit of the body. When the choir and the children’s ministry both understand the over-arching process then together they can form a symbiotic relationship where the growth of the choir results in the growth of the children’s ministry, and visa versa. The paradigm is no longer competitive but becomes more cooperative and unified.

I think Allen Ratta has hit the nail on the head and has helped me to process my own thoughts on this subject. Your can receive the free newsletter Connection Power News at http://connectionpower.com

Overcoming the Contempt of Familiarity

The Seventh Century Greek slave and fable writer, Aesop, is credited with coining the phrase, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” (It is found in the fable, The Fox and the Lion.) This cliché implies that it is wrong, even dangerous, for a leader to become too familiar with those he leads. In ministry it is often suggested that if a pastor gets too close to the congregation then she will end up sacrificing some of the respect of the congregation because they will see the weaknesses of the leader. To avoid this perceived danger some have instructed leaders (even pastors) to maintain a certain aloofness and detachment from those he leads. It is, for example, a violation of military law for commissioned officers to “fraternize” with the enlisted personnel. The belief is that to become too familiar with the enlisted ranks will diminish an officer’s ability to command the respect she needs to lead. In light of this perceived danger one might ask if is it possible to be a servant-leader, to be transparent and vulnerable, and to still be an effective leader.

In Mark’s Gospel chapter 5, we read of Jesus raising a twelve-year-old girl, Jairus’ daughter, from the dead. Then, in chapter 6, we find Jesus returning to His hometown, the town where He grew up, Nazareth. There we do not read of crowds running out to meet Jesus, instead we find an astonishing lack of faith:

2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 And he was amazed at their lack of faith.

This account seems to reinforce the cliché and to underscore the importance of detachment. The people of Jesus’ hometown were not particularly impressed with Jesus and did not rush out to meet Him with their sick and infirmed. Only a few came to Jesus, and Jesus did heal them, but even He was amazed at their lack of faith.

It is very likely that the news of Jesus raising a young girl from death had preceded Him to Nazareth. Many of the miracles, the signs and wonders, were being broadcast abroad. Still, when Jesus came home, back the place of His childhood, the people simply asked, “Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?” Notice the familiarity. These people knew the names of all of Jesus’ brothers! Most of us don’t even know the names of our neighbors, much less their entire family. And because of this, even in the light of the words of wisdom by which Jesus spoke, we are told that “they took offense at him”.

So, could Aesop be right? Is the old leadership model of the heroic figure the right model? Is it possible to be a servant-leader and remain aloof?

I’ve observed leadership in various settings over the years. I’ve been in the military, I worked my way through seminary by working in a factory, and I’ve worked with various pastors in the context of ministry, and it is true, that if a leader is little more than the façade of a great man or woman, then it is in his best interest to keep the people at arm’s length. If the leader portrays herself as infallible then she certainly doesn’t want to get close enough to people for them to see her weaknesses. However, there is a way to overcome the danger of contempt and that is through honesty and humility.

After a series of failure on the part of leaders in many social institutions—from ministry to presidency—younger generations have long ago given up on the illusion that leaders are perfect. In fact, they are often suspicious of leadership that presents itself as somehow superior or above reproach. In Jesus’ case, He was perfect and the lack of faith on the part of the community was unfounded, but we aren’t Jesus. Furthermore, despite the response of His hometown, Jesus was very close to His disciples and we read several times of John laying his head on the chest of Jesus. We see Jesus washing their feet. We find Jesus eating with and “fraternizing” with sinners. Yet Jesus remains the greatest leader to have ever lived.

It is my belief that while a leader should never be guilty of favoritism or of allowing friendships to stand in the path of good leadership decisions, a good leader should never be so detached from the people he leads that he cannot be touched. Even Jesus is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb. 4:15). The best way to avoid contempt is honesty and humility. A leader should be open and transparent with respect to her struggles. This does not mean that the leader has to detail every failure, but that the leader should own up to his mistakes and set the example by being honest about them.

Moreover, the example of Jesus is that even if some reject the leader, their rejection should not deter the leader from the course he has chosen. Jesus did not retreat in the face of their “offense” but instead Jesus empowered His disciples to move the mission forward. He did not separate Himself from His disciples, but He gave more of Himself to His disciples.

Familiarity can breed contempt among the contemptuous, but familiarity can also build trust and confidence among those whom we serve humbly and honestly as leaders. Furthermore, familiarity with integrity can breed loyalty for those who are willing to serve with humility.

Put Out the Pouters

I was looking back over my blogs and found two places where I indicated that I would address an issue and I failed to do so. The first place where I said I would address an issue was at the end of point XII "Courage to Cancel the Funeral." I noted that I would address the subject of "Casting out the Mourners." This past week I began to address that issue and ended up with a sermon, which you can access at Marginalizing the Mourners. But I still want to address this from the perspective of leadership. So I offer the following which should be considered after point XII.

It is difficult to lead people who persist in having a negative attitude. These are people like those found in Luke's Gospel, chapter 8. Jesus was on his way to heal the 12 year-old daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the local syagogue, when He stopped to talk with a woman who had been healed of a bleeding disorder. In the course of time someone from Jairus' home came with the bad news that his daughter had died. The messenger then told Jairus, "Don't trouble the Master any further." The messenger simply assumed that there was no hope. Jesus, however, looked at Jairus and said, "Don't worry, just believe and your daughter will be healed."

The messenger offered bad news and no hope, but Jesus offered hope and good news which was predicated upon the father's faith and God's power. There will always be people who see only the bad, the sad, the trials and the trouble. They almost always come with bad news and no hope. Every leader needs an honest assesment, and needs people who will be bold enough to bring the news even when it is bad. Leaders should let those around them know that they want the truth and that they are welcome to bring the news even if it is not favorable. However, leaders do not need people who will then publish this news throughout the organization and put a bad spin on every turn of events in the organization.

When Jesus arrived at the house of Jairus the professional mourners had already gathered to weep and to wail at the loss of the young girl. Jesus looked at the situation from the perspective of power, God's power. He said, "She is not dead, she is only sleeping." (She was biologically dead, but from the perspective of God's power, she was only sleeping.) When Jesus said she was only sleeping the people began to ridicule Jesus. Mark's Gospel tells us that Jesus put all the people out of the room except for Peter, James and John, and the girl's parents. Jesus put out the pouters, the grumblers and the doubters.

There are professional mourners in most organizations. These are the glass half-empty people who pout and doubt. They weep and wail over every challenge and see only problems where leaders see potential. The constant negativity of these people will poisen an organization and will spread that negativity throughout the organization if they are given a plateform. A leader does not wallow in self-pity and join the chorus of complainers, but instead the leader faces the situation squarely and then charts a course to overcome the challenge. It may even take a bold risk-taking vision that others may not grasp at first. In these situations the leader best serves the organization by marginalizing the mourners and mainstreaming the posibility thinkers and the bold risk takers who can see the vision and are willing to embrace the challenge.

Jesus raised the young girl back to life and that success set the stage for an even more dramatic event in raising Lazarus from the tomb after being dead for four days. One dramaic victory over seeming overcoming odds goes a long way toward establishing confidence and silencing the doubters. It is all too easy to listen to the negativity and fall into the habit of seeing only the problems or the trouble. Instead, a great leader looks at the situation from a different perspective than the average person and instills hope and possibility in the hearts of the people.

XXI) JESUS AND THE EMERGING LEADERSHIP MODEL

I will wrap this series up with a comparison of the leadership style of Jesus with the model that Jimmy Long proposes for the emerging/Postmodern culture. Long isn’t pushing an “emerging leadership style” as being better than, or more valuable than the modern style. All Long is saying is that a survey of the emerging culture suggests that the leadership style which will be most effective in reaching this culture will most likely have to consist of these particular qualities and that the old model will be less effective for leading the new generation.

With that said, I looked at the list of leadership qualities that Long proposes and I feel that perhaps this model does, in fact, reflect the leadership model of Jesus more closely than the modern model. I know that most of us who value the Bible as “the” Word of God would like to believe that what we are doing, and the way we are doing it, come closest to the biblical model. (If it didn't, presumably we'd change.) However, most of us operate with only a vague understanding of how profoundly we have been impacted by our culture. The modern culture, which emerged out of the Enlightenment, has tended to overshadow the Hebraic/Eastern Worldview in which Scripture was written. The Western worldview of rugged individualism and the heroic figure have impacted the church and have elevated certain positions out of the community and insolated them from the community. As such, leadership, in the modern paradigm, almost always operates with a certain disconnect and therefore often fails to build consensus, but operates from a dictatorial model. In fact, I’ve read leadership material put out by the church only twenty years ago that stated that the pastor was to function as a "benevolent dictator".

There was a day when the position alone was enough, but no more. Now the leader of a church, and even in the business world, has to employ a model that places him or her within the community and his or her role is more that of a servant than a master. This does not mean that no one is at the helm steering the ship, but that everyone on the ship understands where they are going, why they are going there, and how they are going to have to work together to get there.

Returning to Long’s emerging leadership paradigm and the leadership model of Jesus let me suggest the following:

1. Team Leadership—It is obvious that Jesus was building a team to work together to advance the Kingdom of God. Jesus practiced the “see, do, be” mentoring approach. He called the men to Him to be His disciples. SEE: They walked with Him and saw Him perform great miracles. DO: Jesus sent them out into the villages and cities to preach the kingdom, to heal the sick and to cast out demons. BE: Then, before He ascended He told them that He was sending them, even as the Father had sent Him, and that they would do the works that He had done, and even greater than He had done.

2. Community Oriented—Jesus was a man of community. We often see Him alone in prayer, but more often we see Him in with the disciples, with the crowds, even with sinners and publicans. He knew the heart and soul of the people. He understood their frustration with the religious establishment and He was offering them a “better covenant.”

3. Earned Authority—Jesus was unique in the fact that He is God in the flesh. And yet, this authority alone did not gather crowds to Him. It was as He performed miracles, as He did those things that revealed His authority that people believed and followed Him. It is doubtful that even with all His authority, that Jesus would have gathered a following on the power of His words alone. Even His disciples believed after seeing water turned to wine, or seeing Him calm the waves. Likewise, in the emerging community, words alone (regardless of how well we may think we preach and teach) are not going to be enough. It will be by our good works that our faith is revealed and God is glorified—so says Jesus and James.

4. Vulnerable Leader—This is obvious. Jesus made Himself of no reputation. He became human and walked in our skin. He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. He allowed them to take Him by force, beat Him, and nail Him to a cross naked. One doesn’t get much more vulnerable than that!

5. Developing Vision—Jesus consistently reminded the disciples of His destiny, though they didn’t seem to get it until after the resurrection. He spoke often of the kingdom of God and what it was like. He told them of their roles and challenged them with both the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

6. Empower—Jesus empowered the disciples with the authority of His name, and promised them power in the Holy Spirit once He ascended to the Father. Talk about delegating! Jesus came to earth with a mission, called a team around Him to complete the mission, mentored them, empowered them and then sent them to the uttermost parts of the earth while He ascended to the right hand of the Father. True enough, His position at the right hand of the Father further empowers us.

7. Journey—Jesus’ entire ministry illustrates the journey. He was constantly on the move. Unlike foxes that have holes, He said that He didn’t even have anywhere to lay His head. His entire life was a journey toward Calvary, and then to ascension to the Father. He likened the Christian experience to entering a narrow gate and walking on a narrow road.

8. Inspire to Leadership—There were not many who would have been willing to give their lives in martyrdom for the sake of a carpenter’s son. But Jesus inspired these men and women with His words and with His life. He gave them a vision of something far better and eternal than what they had known.

Perhaps I’m pressing the point, but I feel that we need to go back to the future, to reclaim the leadership model of Jesus and that in so doing we will be better equipped to reach the culture that is emerging out of the false security and self-delusion of the modern culture. One of the characteristics of the emerging culture is the loss of a meta-narrative. A meta-narrative is an overarching Worldview which sums up human existence. In the Postmodern culture the meta-narrative is rejected favor of the micro-narrative. In other words, they would maintain that there is no “one” story and that all stories (religions) are equally valid.

The problem with this view is that it is self-deluding. It's fallacy is soon revealed when competing world views, which claim exclusivity, are brought into conflict. If all micro-narratives are equally valid, then each one is right in saying that it is the only one that is right. This creates a logical paradox that eventually dawns upon even the Postmodern. They may claim to hold this tension unresolved, but it creates a vacuum, a void into which Christianity has the opportunity to flow. It cannot be forced, but the macro-narrative of the kingdom of God has something to offer those who become dissatisfied with the void created the multitudinous micro-narratives.

The emerging culture is nothing to be feared, nor should the church allow the culture to dictate the agenda of the church. That agenda has already been established by Christ in the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. However, as fishers of men we should be wise enough to cast our nets where the fish are, to use bait that they will bite on, and to be ready to fill our boats to the overflow with the catch.

During a time when the liturgical tradition church is declining, there are many examples of those who have caught the vision of the opportunities of the emerging culture and whose churches are rapidly growing. It takes leadership, it takes a Jesus kind of leadership, but it can and does happen.

XX) BACK TO THE FUTURE OF LEADERSHIP

I remember a trilogy of movies from the 80's entitled, Back to the Future. Marty, played by Michael J. Fox, was the main character who, through a series of events related to an eccentric scientist and a time machine, goes first back to the past and then to his future before going back to the more distant past and eventually returns to his present. His present, however, has been altered by his activities in the past. The time machine was a modified Delorian (a stainless steel car for some of you younger folks). Interestingly, at the time the movie was made a Delorian was a modernistic looking car but the car company went defunct and no longer exists.

I reflect upon that movie because the title seems like an oxymoron. The future, as we all know, is thought of as being forward in a linear timeline stretching from the past. We speak of “eternity past” and “eternity future” and illustrate this with a line. A line, in geometry, is a straight line with two arrows pointing in opposite directions on each end. It suggests that it has no beginning and no end. A segment is a line with points or dots at the end. It represents a specific measurment or a definable period to time, as such, time is a segment plucked out of eternity. So to talk about going backward in order to go forward is a paradoxical statement. Yet, in the discussion of leadership it seems that we do, indeed, need to go backward if we hope to be able to lead in the present future. Let me explain.

I recently attended a conference with Leonard Sweet and Jimmy Long as the featured speakers. These men are both recognized as leaders in the current “emerging church” movement. They are also futurists and surveyors of culture. These men, as well as those who work in this field of study agree that our culture, on a global scale, is changing and a new cultural paradigm is “emerging” --hence the concept of the emerging church. Some refer to it as Postmodern. This term too, seems somewhat oxymoronic in that we often though of modern as a dynamic, or a moving definition, rather than a static or stationary definition. As such, we tended to believe that modern is always modern. We conceded that what was “modern” today may well be “antique” in the future, but it seemed that it would be impossible to move beyond modern because modern was moving forward.

Now are are saying that this may not have been the case at all. Many are now saying that we have moved beyond modern. Modernity is a cultural mindset with its own rules, structures and worldview, and many still operate within this worldview. However, the cultural shift going on in the world is so dramatic and dynamic that the cultural paradigm of modernity is quickly becoming obsolete and the changes are accelerating. Within the last week, the disaster in New Orleans is one example of an event in our time that challenges the very fabric of all that we Americans held dear as a “modern” nation. We have watched a modern city in a relatively young nation reduced to primitive, third-world conditions in a matter of days.

What will the results of this tragedy be? How it will affect the psyche and the spirituality of the nation? Already there is a growing dissatisfaction with the response of the government and of leadership in general. Justified or not, the perception being created through the media is that nothing is being done and that leadership from local police precincts all the way up to the president has failed to respond in a timely manner. This perception is and will alter the role and the reality of future leadership.

It was during the conference I attended (which was held prior to Hurricane Katrina) that Jimmy Long compared and contrasted leadership models from the “Modern” cultural paradigm with the paradigm of the “Postmodern” or “Emerging” culture. Let me list both models:

Modern Leadership Paradigm

Individual Leader (One person in charge of the whole)

Task Oriented (We gather together to do this task)

Positional Authority (He/She holds this title, so they are the leader)

Heroic Leader (He/She is the picture of strength and courage)

Building Structures (Organizational and literal structures)

Direct (Give specific commands, directives, directions)

Destination Oriented (We are going to this place and when we get there we have reached our goal)

Aspire to Leadership (Being a leader is a worthy goal, and something to strive for)

Emerging Leadership ParadigmTeam Leadership (The leader is part of a team and they are working together. He is seem more as a coach helping the team to succeed.)

Community Oriented (We are not coming together only to achieve this task, but we are coming together to be together in community.)

Earned Authority (You are not commissioned leadership, you earn it through trust, integrity, and concern.)

Vulnerable Leader (The leader must demonstrate that he or she is on the same road, walking with the team. As such, he or she struggles with the same issues.)

Developing Vision (The leader is not trying to build a structure, but is developing a vision, which may be in flux, not as a fixed point of reference, but as an emerging and fluid direction toward which the organization moves.)

Empower (The leader does not claim to know or have all the answers, but empowers others to find their answers for themselves. Empowers them to become and to achieve a state of genuinaity (my new word, which means to be “genuine, honest, real and in touch with existential moment”.)

Journey (The goal is not to reach a goal, to mobilize for a destination, but to engage in the journey, to have, as Tillich puts it, “the courage to be” in the moment.)

Inspire to Leadership (Given that leadership is now suspect. Baby Boomers have witnessed the Watergate debacle, have gone back to revisit the moral lapses of icons, like John Kennedy, have seen the moral failures of Evangelical Superstars, and now Generation X and the new Millennial generation are witnessing the moral failures of Catholic priests and are witnessing the seeming impotency of current governmental and military leadership in the face of disaster. So who wants to be a leader? What is there to aspire to? If we are going to have leadership for the future, then current leaders are going to have to inspire the next generation to step up and be willing to lead.)

With all of that said, and after reviewing the two lists of characteristics of leadership, it seems to me that the leadership style of Jesus was more along the lines of emerging culture than of the modern. So perhaps, to be an effective leader for to the future, we need to go back to the model that Christ gave us. I will explore this thesis a little more in my next blog.

XIX) EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

I have dozens of books and many more magazines on the subject of leadership in my library. Most of them are written from the Christian/Biblical perspective, but many are secular and come from the business world. In my humble opinion one of the best secular books written on leadership is entitled Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee (Harvard Business School Press, 2002). Their argument, and it is compelling, is that a leader’s ability to positively affect the emotions of those around them is as important to leadership as having a high IQ. In short, the leader will either be able to instill a sense of goodwill and confidence in the organization, which the authors call resonance, or they will create a negative climate, which they call dissonance.

My wife has worked in the retail business for several years for one of the major retail giants. During this time she has worked in several different stores and with many different store managers. I’ve listened to her describe the working climate in these stores under various managers and what she has observed is what Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee have studied and documented, namely, that the emotional intelligence (EQ) of the leadership will either have a positive (resonance) or negative (dissonance) effect that will filter throughout the organization. This effect will flow from the highest levels of leadership down to the cart pusher in the parking-lot.

Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee list four elements of healthy emotional intelligence: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management. Briefly, these four areas relate to the following:

SELF-AWARENESS: awareness of one’s own emotions and their impact; knowing one’s own strengths and limits; and, a sound sense of one’s self-worth and capabilities.

SELF-MANAGEMENT: keeping disruptive emotions under control; displaying honesty and integrity; being flexible and adaptable; a drive to improve; readiness to seize opportunities; and, seeing the upside in events.

SOCIAL AWARENESS: sensing others’ emotions and understanding their perspective; reading the currents, networks and politics of the organization; and, recognizing and meeting client or customer needs.

RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT: guiding and motivating with a compelling vision; utilizing the power of persuasion; provide feedback and guidance to bolster the abilities of others; initiating, managing and leading in a new direction; resolving disagreements; cultivating and maintaining a web of relationships; and, cooperation and team building. (p. 39)

Unlike intelligence and personality traits, which many believe are genetically predetermined, EQ can be developed and improved. With these four “Emotional Intelligence Domains” one can be effective in creating resonance and thereby creating a positive work environment with people who are willing to work together to accomplish the goal and vision of the organization.

I realize I began this series with a discussion of the leadership lessons we gain from Jesus, and it may seem that I have deviated, but as I looked at the four EQ domains it occurs to me that Jesus exemplified each of these. Jesus had an acute sense of “self-awareness.” He knew exactly who He was, who had sent Him, and what His mission was.

Jesus was a master at “self-management.” He knew what He had to do to accomplish His mission and He able to exemplify honesty and integrity while He pressed toward that goal.

Jesus had a keen sense of “social awareness.” He knew the thoughts of people and understood their inner turmoil. He could clearly see the needs of the people, even if they were only focused on their wants.

And finally, Jesus was an expert at “relationship management.” He initiated, managed and led the world in a new direction. And He built a team around Him who would continue the mission even after He ascended to the Father.

There is a difference between leading people and manipulating people. Great leaders utilize EQ to positively affect the emotions of others so that they can see, believe in, and pursue the vision and mission of the organization. The opposite is to create a climate of distrust, frustration, cynicism and discouragement. An organization can only remain static for so long; it must either move forward or it will move backward. A positive attitude that filters throughout the organization can empower the people to overcome obstacles, create innovative approaches, and work together as a team for the health of the organization.

XVIII) HAVING A SERVANT’S HEART

In light of the record of the Synoptic Gospels it is interesting that in John’s Gospel, as we come to the Passion of Christ and anticipate the Lord’s Supper, we find Jesus washing His disciples' feet. I agree with those who see here an intent on the part of John, via the Holy Spirit, to place Feetwashing within the framework of a Sacrament. I agree with the view held by Chris Thomas, Ph.D. (a professor at the Church of God Theological Seminar) that Feetwashing is a powerful symbol of the continual cleansing of the blood of Christ. Water Baptism is a Sacrament that symbolizes the initial cleansing experienced at salvation and Feetwashing represents the daily and continuing cleansing of the believer through Calvary.

With that said, however, I want to focus on another lesson in this account, that being the example of servant leadership displayed by Christ to His disciples and to us today. Jesus gives us a powerful example of great leadership and at the heart of that example is the picture of the teacher kneeling down and washing the feet of His students.

The idea of servant leadership is not new. It has been explored and probed through countless articles and books on the subject and I probably have nothing novel to add except to reiterate the point. Great leaders are not focused on raising up people who will cater only to those above them on the corporate ladder, but will be a servant to those coming up behind them as well. Leadership writer John Maxwell has often expressed that great leaders will always be looking to help lift the lives of others up and to develop more great leaders. Great leaders, developing great leaders, developing great leaders, will insure the life and longevity, as well as the future and vitality, of the organization or the church.

I was blessed to be able to have lunch with our denominational Administrative Bishop of our state this week. He came and spoke for us at the church which I pastor but I didn’t know him very well. Given his position and the propensity for politics at that level of leadership I had tended to assume that while he was likeable and seemingly amicable, he would operate according to what was politically expedient. After talking with him and breaking bread with him I soon found that he is a man who is willing to take a stand on principle. In addition, he asked me if there was anything he could do to facilitate my functioning in a small leadership position I hold in the state. I came away from that lunch with a new respect for this man’s leadership because I sensed in him a man of principle, compassion and a servant’s heart.

Jesus knelt down and washed His disciples’ feet. This was the task of the servants in the house, not the Rabbi, not the Master. Peter tried to stop Jesus from washing his feet but Jesus insisted and Peter eventually relented. Jesus was showing us that if we want to be a great leader then we must have a servant’s heart. We must be willing to kneel down and wash the feet of those we want to teach servant leadership to.

Jesus also shows us that we must be willing to lead by example. Jesus didn’t just say that we are to serve one another (though He did teach this on several occasions), but Jesus showed us what it looks like to be a servant. When others see the leader serving, they will be more inclined to serve as well.

As the senior pastor of a medium sized and growing church I cannot personally wash the feet of every member, I cannot visit every home and counsel every member, but I can wash the feet of my elders and staff members and teach them to serve others. I can be a servant to those I want to raise up in leadership positions in the church so that they will be servant leaders as well and everyone in the church senses that they are cared for and ministered to.

Some see the servant leadership model as a weak model for leadership, but we see the strength of Christ as Peter tried to resist the lesson. Jesus was serving but He was still the leader and He was still in command of the encounter. There is nothing weak about this model. It takes confidence and a high level of personal security in one’s role to be willing to employ the servant leader model. Insecure and egotistical leaders simply cannot bring themselves to serve in this fashion. Such leaders need constant affirmation and control of others. But these leaders do not reflect the leadership model displayed by Christ kneeling down and washing the feet of his disciples.

XVII) MAKING TOUGH DECISIONS

Being a leader can be very gratifying. There are rewards, such as seeing a project completed on time and on budget, or getting the ministry up and running, growing and touching lives. There are the accolades and “at-a-boy’’s”, the recognition and the sheer satisfaction of knowing we have made a positive impact on so many people’s lives. If it weren’t for these returns not many people would invest themselves in leadership because along with the rewards, there are also the challenges. There are the difficult people (check out my sermon, “Dealing With Problem People”). There are the critics whom the leaders cannot please regardless of how hard he or she tries. There are the limited resources, the unfair demands, the undeserved blame, the long hours and the stress. Then there are those tough decisions that have to be made and the leaders is the one who has to make them.

Recently I was on my way to Denver to attend the Christian Book Distributors Convention, and in the airport in Atlanta I saw a book that caught my eye. It is entitled, Tough Management: The 7 Ways to Make Tough Decision Easier, Deliver the Numbers, and Grow Business in Good Times and Bad, by Chuck Martin (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005). The title is long, but the part about making tough decisions easier got my attention. I’ve been reading the book and it is helpful, full of research and insights from business leaders, but when you get right down to it tough decisions are still tough. In the end, however, the effective leader must be able to make even the tough calls.

Jesus was willing to make tough decisions with eternal and universal significance. In business and in church leadership we often have to make decisions that will affect the lives of people in profound ways. When revenue is down the decision to let people go can be gut wrenching. Who to hire, who to fire, who to promote and who to downsize are all tough calls and all calls that ultimately end at the desk of the leader. Jesus made tough calls that impacted more than just the pocketbook or the bank balance. For Jesus the decisions He made had eternal impact. The future of humanity hung in the balance as Jesus made the decision to pray, “Not my will but thine be done.”

In chapter two of his book, Martin gives seven guidelines to assist the leader in making difficult decisions. First, he says to put off the tough calls. He isn’t suggesting that one procrastinate, but give time and perspective the opportunity to help clarify the issues. The decisions may be difficult, but they should not be rash or rushed decisions.

Second, he says to give yourself a timeframe. If possible break the decision down in bite sizes and schedule them in a way that gives others time to adjust.

Third, recognize your own personality traits. Are you a duck or an eagle? Ducks tend to follow other ducks; they are more comfortable in a flock. For them, making a tough decision is easier if others around them have to do the same thing. In other words, if all other department managers are cutting back staff, it is easier for the duck to do the same. The eagle is more independent. He or she simply makes the decision and moves on. Martin gives three steps to forcing hard decisions: (1) Collect and consider the most information for the decision at the time. (2) Make the decision and communicate it. (3) Move on.

Fourth, leaders must recognize and accept the fact that tough decisions have to be made and it is the leader’s responsibility to make them. Leaders who try to delegate those decisions in order to defer the difficulty will quickly lose the respect of peers and workers. Martin says, “A key in making tough decisions is to actually make them, rather than procrastinate and make a situation linger too long.”

Fifth, “segment tough decisions by time”. Martin observes that “trying to deal with all tough decisions at the same time is pointless and, at best, can be overwhelming.” To overcome this, he says to “categorize tough or even significant decisions by the time frame in which they should be made.”

Sixth, Martin says to “segment tough decisions by level.” There will be times when employees in leadership positions beneath you in the organizational flowchart will need to be the ones to make the call. Your decision may be to tell the manager that six people will have to be let go from his department, but you will allow him to make the call as to which six will go.

Last, Martin says that when tough decisions must be made, they should not be affected by office politics. Tough decisions should be made objectively and without prejudice. The overall good of the business or the church must be paramount and the greater good should never be sacrificed out of personal friendships or political pull.

Martin says one should ask the following questions as guidelines for considering and weighing difficult decisions:

1. Who does this decision affect?
2. What else does this decision affect?
3. What is the long-range implication?
4. Who would oppose it and why?
5. What is the alternative?
6. When should the decision be made?

Tough decisions are tough, but Jesus demonstrates that making the right decisions (tough or not), at the right time, for the right reasons, can bring about the greater good.