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.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005
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!”
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!”
Thursday, November 10, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
