Motivating Volunteers

How do we motivate volunteers to remain committed and to give of themselves sacrificially? I think that Maslow’s self-esteem and self-actualization levels in his five teir hierarchy are important. Additionally, Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory holds promise in that the intrinsic conditions needed to elicit motivation can be employed in the church. These are achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, the work itself, and the possibility of growth.

I think that by providing training with certificates and measured advancement can be motivating, as well as publicly presenting certificates or diplomas for completion. Also, recognizing the contributions of others is motivational. I have always had a weekly lay-leaders recognition program where I prayerfully consider the labors of a lay-leader from that week and then recognize them in the bulletin as “Christian Worker of the Week,” and post their name and ministry activity on the bulletin board.

This is important for me as well, in that, if forces me to stop and seriously consider all the significant contributions to ministry that are made by volunteers in the church. After that, I have to stop for a moment and thank God for so many committed people.

Three Leaders In The Flock

The truth is that we have far too many people who want the title, the position, and the privilege of being a leader but fail to lead effectively. It is frustrating for a pastor to have a teacher who does not lead his or her class, to have an elder who does not consistently engage the people for whom he is responsible, or to have the staff member who fails to train and equip workers to minister. Ultimately, as the pastor I am responsible for leading the leaders and developing them. As President Harry Truman reminded himself with a plaque on his desk, “The buck stops here!” If my leaders aren’t leading, then perhaps, I’m not doing my job.

The Gospel of John, chapter 10, verses 11 through 13 shows us three types of leaders who impact a flock. Jesus said,

11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. NIV

A shepherd, by definition, leads the sheep. Jesus said in verse 4 that the sheep will follow the shepherd because they know his voice. Three types of leadership models are found in this text. First, there is the good shepherd. This is a servant leader (or perhaps more definitively, a kenotic leader) who is prepared to give everything for the sheep. Five times in verses 11-18 Jesus refers to laying down His life. This leader is willing to place the welfare of the sheep ahead of his own life.

The second kind of leader is the hired hand. He may be a shepherd, but he has no investment in the flock. He is there for himself and for his own benefit. An example would be a bad Charismatic leader, or perhaps a transactional leader. If it benefits him to care for the flock he will, but if personal sacrifice is called for, it will not happen. He will abandon the flock to the wolf.

Finally, there is the wolf. Although not a leader in the parable, it is true that wolves often come into the flock wearing the mantle of a leader. Jesus refers to them as wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mat. 7:15). He is worse than a hired hand because he is interested only in himself and anticipates using the flock to feed on.

I’ve seen examples of all three of these types of leaders come into a church. I’ve sent the good shepherds who gave and sacrificed and who raised up other good shepherds as the flock grew. I’ve seen hired hands who were just passing through. They needed a church to start out in, but they made no real emotional or spiritual investment in the church. Finally, I’ve seen wolves in a shepherd's garb. They had the hairstyle and the clothing down, the pastoral mannerisms and even the right words, but it quickly became evident that their intention was to fleece the flock and move on. They drained the saving accounts, lived as extravagantly as they could for as long as they could, and then when there was nothing else to take, they moved on. Sadly, too many denominations allow this to happen without corrective action or punitive measures for the wolves.

Grandma's Leadership Paradigm

I grew up in West Virginia deep in the hills next to a creek. Most of the people who lived around us were family. Often when we would get together to address a situation or engage in a project the entire enterprise dissolved into yet another exercise in futility and family feuds. My grandmother (the matriarch of the family) would usually assess the situation by telling us there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I don’t suppose that was politically correct, but then again, I doubt that she ever heard of the concept of political correctness.

Her comment reflected a strongly held belief that someone (emphasize “one”) should be in control. Other phrases like “too many cooks in the kitchen” and “too many hands in the pot” illustrated the idea that there should be a clearly identified, communally recognized, and perhaps even officially certified leader in charge. The feeling was that if this delineation between leader and follower were not clearly defined and respected then nothing would “get done”.

My grandmother was born in 1906 and she died in 2005 at the age of ninety-nine. Obviously, she came from a different era, a time when great men like Ford, Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy lived. It was widely believed that a “great man” could lead a nation, a church, or a business forward in pursuit of success. This was held to be true from the local church on the dirt road of Elk Lick, West Virginia, to the nation’s capital, to the Ford Motor Company that transformed her world from dirt roads and horses, to automobiles and pavement.

By the time my grandmother passed much had changed. Great men had experienced great failures, dramatically affecting the national psyche and bringing about a significant change in the way we view leaders. After Nixon’s Watergate, Clinton’s Monicagate, and the Enron debacle at the hands of a CEO, leaders having singular control is no longer viewed favorably. Now we want more cooks in the kitchen, we want more chiefs in the camp, and we expect to see leadership shared among teams and not held by a few elites at the top of some imaginary hierarchical structure.

There has been a shift of focus in leadership studies from the singular impact of the leader, to the significant importance of the followers. Assumed, perhaps, is that a collective is more trustworthy than an individual is, or that power distributed in the hands of many is less dangerous than a concentration of power in the hands of the few, or the one. This is, after all, the premise of democracy.

More recent leadership literature, such as the massive work by Bernard Bass, Bass & Stogdills’ Handbook of Leadership, or Gary Yukl’s Leadership in Organizations, has relegated the Great Man theories to the dusty pages of history. Even the Charismatic Leader theories have been abandoned in favor of Transformational leadership models where the leader empowers, inspires, and partners with the followers. The charismatic leader, or the benevolent dictator, might inspire, but he or she failed to empower or to partner with the followers.

The philosophical shift from a top-down model to a more egalitarian approach is a movement that continues to evolve as the Servant Leadership model popularized by Charles Greenleaf has come into prominence.

My grandmother was a devoutly Christian woman whose view of leadership was shaped by the times and by her experiences. It was her experience that too many people trying to take the lead on one project was a failure waiting to happen. However, she readily embraced the cliché espoused by many a preacher that “the ground is level at the foot of the cross.” Furthermore, in our church we regularly observed the practice of feetwashing as a sacrament of our church. Each time we participated in this ordinance we were powerfully reminded of the night Jesus, the Lord and Master, took on the role of a servant. As such, the concept of Servant-Leader was not foreign to her theologically; it was just that she never thought of it as a general model for leadership. One leader in charge with the followers in line behind him was her paradigm. (As a widowed mother of eight children this probably made sense.)

It seems that the modern idealism of an evolution of science and society taking us toward a utopian “Camelot” future died with Kennedy. Skepticism and post-modernity were born with the Vietnam War and Watergate, were nurtured in Monicagate and Enron, and is coming into their own in the light of CIA misinformation leading us into a war on a quest to destroy weapons of mass destruction that apparently never existed.

As the war against terrorism wages on and as the level of gridlock, partisanship, and vitriol escalates among the nation’s political “leaders,” we can only imagine where the paradigm of leadership will be 54 years from now when I turn 99. The trend has been to take the leader off the throne, down from the pyramid and into the masses. In fact, the paradigmatic shift now seems to place the leader under the followers, lifting them up and encouraging them to achieve their full potential. So where does the leadership model go from here? Is there an ultimate model, one model that will stand as the logical end to a quest for the perfect model?

If social trends continue and if the leadership paradigm sift continues in the direction it has historically gone, then leadership in 2050 will be problematic at best. The level cynicism and relativism may be as epidemic as the Avian Bird Flue by then. The family, a time tested laboratory for leadership, will be redefined and religious relativism will every man or woman their own Messiah. Perhaps it will all be academic by then. Could it be that the anarchy looming on the horizon of the societal sunset is the very sea out of which a worldwide dictator will emerge? Is this the beginning of the end of leadership? And if leadership is cast into the abyss with the last worldwide dictator (Antichrist), will the world then be ready for a King (Jesus)?

LEADERSHIP DNA

I think there is a book somewhere that has a title referencing leadership DNA. I haven't read it, but in the past few weeks I've been doing extensive reading in the fields of psychology, sociology and epistemology. As I read I see the classic debate of nature vs. nurture being rehashed. Are we born to be leaders, or are we made?

Most will claim that it is a little of both. I would argue (as a parent observing the different temperaments of my children) that we are born with certain personality traits. We are born bold or timid, we are born with an IQ and maybe even an EQ, we are born assertive or reticent, but what we do with these predispositional traits is shaped by our environment. Where we grow up, how we are raised, the opportunities or the challenges we overcome all help to shape the raw DNA material into the person we will become.

As an adult (beginning somewhere around the age of 20 or so) we find that our leadership personality traits (LPT) are fairly well set. We can improve, we can learn, we can maximize our strengths and work around our weaknesses, but we are who we are. This would mean that it can be an exercise in futility to accept a leadership position which is outside the realm of our LPT. We may want the paycheck, the promotion, the recognition and the status, but we should be honest with ourselves and true to ourselves. We will be much more effective and satisfied by finding our fit.

I watched a person in a poor leadership fit, flounder and fail. They began to believe that they could not lead, that they were not a “leader”. But placed in the right position, in the proper setting for their own LPT they excelled and regained their self-confidence. Personality temperament assessments and surveys are helpful tools in providing insight into our LPT and thus, where we are most likely to achieve success as a leader.

We don't like to hear this. We often want to believe that we can do anything that we set our mind to, that we can "grow" into the position. In truth, there is the tendency to grow into our highest level of incompetence (the Peter Principle). Leadership and management courses, seminars, and conferences will gladly take our money and lead us to believe that we can change our LPT and become an effective leader outside of our area of interest, expertise, or leadership DNA. We usually leave the seminar psyched up, enthused and ready to implement a few simple laws of leadership, believing that we will transform ourselves and the organization that we are leading. The truth is that after the excitement wears off, we look in the mirror and we are the same person we were before the course, seminar or conference.

What then is the value of consultation, conferences, seminars or courses? They can help us become better at what we do best. They can help us to understand ourselves and to discover our strengths and identify our weaknesses. We can become more efficient, we can learn new practices, and we can use new tools in the arena of leadership, but it will all be shaped by who we are.

It is for this reason that I believe strongly in the concept of team leadership. A carefully chosen team, with LPT's that complement and complete one another on the team can make all the difference. The future of leadership will probably be in more effective team building and team leading. The days of the Lone Ranger leadership model are quickly passing.

Socialization and the Emergent Movement

I've been doing much reading in preparation for the Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership that I am taking through Regent University. The first semester required over $1,000 in books. There are around twenty books of required reading and these are BIG books. Wew!

In my reading--which includes psychology, sociology, philosophy, management and leadership--I have been challenged in my thinking. One of the challenges is to the idea of the autonomous self. The autonomous self is the belief, idea, theory, or theology that every man or woman is completely in control of who they are, how they think, what they do, how to live, and so forth. Those who believe in autonomous self will argue that a man or woman can change if they want to. That all which is required is that a person pull themselves up by their bootstraps, make a decision to change how their view themselves and then live according to a new paradigm.

The social self theory would argue that there are social dynamics involved over which the individual has only limited or even no control. The social self theory would argue that much of who we see ourselves as (and therefore act and live accordingly) is thrust upon us by society. Therefore we tend to conform to the expectations of society as we come to an understanding of who we are and how we should act in a given societal milieu.

There are some powerful points to be made for both theories, and it may be that there are elements of truth in both. At the very least it should cause us to step back and reflect upon the influence of social expectation upon us and then to ask if we are trying to live up to the image of Christ as an issue of a personal decision of salvation, or if we are merely trying to fulfill the social expectations of a the group with which we identify. We need to consider if we are merely acting as it is expected of us by our church, or if we have truly experienced a spiritual change through the New Birth. Only a true tranformation will enable us to stand and to prevail in the absense of the mediating influences of other Christians.

It would seem to me that much of what happens in religious circles is a socialization process whereby the group in which we find fulfillment and meaning defines us and supplies us with the expectations of acceptance in that group. It is also true that the more dogmatic and the less introspective a group is, the more narrowly they define those expectations, for example the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, or even some forms of fundamentalist Christianity.

The danger of some of the newer forms of religious expression, such as Emergent Theology, is that they can be equally restrictive and self-deluding. There is the propensity for this movement, as with most novel movements, to speak in absolutist terms and with a false sense of definity about things which are, by their own definition, "emerging." They talk about the Postmodern paradigm and assume that current forms of religious expression are not and will not be effective in reaching the next generation. They have put forth their own models for religious expression and declare with some bravado that these expressions are the future of the church because, according to some, the church as we know it has no future (i.e. George Barna).

In predictable fashion the Emergent movement, which represents something of a protest movement against traditional religious expression, is in the process of creating its own tradition, which (as is always the claim) is closer to the primitive expressions of Christianity than current "traditional Christianity". As such, there will be a socialization process within the movement that will define the "authentic Christian". By claiming that they are seeking authenticity there is the implication that other expressions are less than authentic if not inauthentic. Therefore, to be authentic, to be a real Christian, one must allow the definitions of the Emergent movement to shape them. Either way there is then a socialization process involved in this movement or there is acquiescence to the Postmodern social definitions of self. Either way, there are social expectations that seek, even if unknowingly, to redefine individuals according to their new model.

Let me conclude by saying that I appreciate, and am willing to incorporate many of the expressions of worship and witness of the "emergent" movement. My concern is the willingness of the "movement" to dismiss as archaic, current forms of Christian religious expressions. It is the epitome of hypocrisy to malign tradition while at the same time creating your own. Of course, they would argue that they are not creating a tradition, they are rediscovering authentic expressions of the Christian faith. This is, after all, the traditional response by new movements.

Putting Puzzles Together

My wife and I (mostly me) have taken up the hobby of putting together puzzles. She brought home a giant box containing ten puzzles from 1000 pieces to 500 pieces. I immediately pulled out the largest in the box and for a little over one week my wife, my daughter and I began to put the puzzle together. Since then I have completed a 750 piece puzzle and am now working on a 500 piece puzzle.

In the process of putting together puzzles, I have been thinking about leadership and have come up with the following parallels.

1. It helps to begin with a vision of the big picture. I once did a leadership training class where I gave each of two teams a 240 piece puzzle with the same picture on each of them. I gave one team the box cover with the picture and the other team had no picture to look at. I told them it was a race and as you can imagine, the team with the picture finished well ahead of the other team. A big picture, or a vision of what you are trying to accomplish is a big help.

2. It helps to have a structure, or an outline from which to begin. I always look for the straight edged pieces first and then put the boarder of the puzzle together before trying to fill in the details of the picture. Successful leaders have boundaries and they are able to communicate the boundaries of the vision to others.

3. After looking at the big picture and creating the boarder, I begin to group similar colors together. This makes it easier to find the pieces when I need them. In leadership, a sense of order and grouping is important. Knowing which team members will be needed for a particular task, knowing who has which skills and who technical knowledge in advance helps to make decisions quickly and effectively.

4. When I am working on the same puzzle with other people we have to try to work together or we find that we are working at cross purposes. Some times my wife and get in one another's way, or we get in one another's light and we find ourselves sniping at one another. In leadership, we must learn to communicate and coordinate our efforts so that we are working together to accomplish a common goal, rather than working against one another.

5. Even in completing a puzzle, our competitive spirit comes out. When my wife and I were coming down the final pieces we each snatched and grabbed the pieces from one another trying to be the one who completed the puzzle by putting in the final piece. We each wanted to be able to say that we completed the puzzle. In fact, I held onto the last piece, but she wouldn't let me put it in the last remaining hole in the puzzle. I finally had to give it to her so that she could claim victory. In business, we need to lay aside personal agendas, try to work together and share the glory for a job well done. As long as the entire organization benefits, the individuals in the team will benefit as well.

I'm sure there are other puzzle principles to leadership if I took the time to think of them. If you have a puzzle principle to leadership add it to this blog.

HONEST ASSESMENT OF SELF AND OTHERS

Recently I was reading a massive book entitled Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, & Managerial Applications,(the title is long, but the book is longer at over eleven hundred pages) written by Bernard M. Bass, and I was reminded of a fact that I had read in earlier research. Bass states, “In most surveys, leaders tend to give themselves in inflated evaluation in contrast to their colleague’s descriptions of their performance. . . . Concepts of the self can be perceived or actually be at variance with the outside world and affect a leader’s performance” (p. 152). I was already familiar with similar research that showed that most people believe they are better at a skill, talent, position, and so forth, than they really are.

Watching the early rounds of the American Idol television show is the most painfully clear example of this. Singer after singer steps up thinking that they are the next idol but most of them are not even average. Then, when someone like Simon is finally honest with them (someone who isn’t particularly concerned about hurting their feelings), most of these "wanna-be's" either melt into tears after coming off the stage or defiantly declare that they are as good as they thought they were, it’s just that those judges don’t know good talent when they see it.

As a pastor I often encounter people who are convinced that they are called to a particular ministry or role in the church and that they are very good at it, but in observing them I had to disagree. There is a message here for the leader as well. We must be, as all the research shows, humble enough to listen to and act upon feedback from people who feel free to be honest with us. Now, as a leader we are always the target of unfair and uninformed criticism. Some people want a teaching minister but we are more dynamic in our delivery so they criticize us. Well, Paul’s statement about being all things to all men not withstanding, we cannot be everything to everyone. I’ve told some of my critics with as much humility as I could muster, "I’m sorry you aren’t 'fed' by my ministry, but there are many other wonderful churches in the area and you might be better served to look for a place where you can be 'fed'”.

After filtering out the static of the chronic complainers, we need to listen to the people we respect. I have told the staff of the church here that they are welcome to come into my office at any time, close the door, and tell me what they really think. They can tell me if I’ve failed them, or if they see anything in my conduct or character that might reflect poorly on the church. I want honest and open feedback, but I have also warned them that if they talk about me to others in the church, if they criticize and undermine me to others instead of coming and talking to me, they may well find their employment here terminated.

I always live with the assumption that I might not be as good as my momma says I am. I might not be as good of a preacher as the people walking out the door on Sunday shaking my hand, say I am. Over the years I have worked with many young pastors (young in ministry, young and older in age) and often their zeal far surpasses their ability. I’ve also had teachers and singers come to me convinced that they were excellent in their respective roles. At one large church where I served as the Pastor of Christian Education a man came to me, handed me a business card and said, “I’m a teacher and I’d like to teach an adult class.” I didn’t know this man very well but my observation was that he did not have an engaging personality, and seemed to lack the social skills necessary to build relationships necessary for a successful class. I inquired from other staff members who had been at the church much longer than me and they immediately knew who had approached me. They said that he had a great desire to teach, and had taken classes and was apparently biblically adept, but when he was given the opportunity to teach an elective class, no one showed up. He could not get a class going and then when he was placed in an established class it dwindled down to nothing.

Somewhere, someone should have been honest enough with this man to say, “You obviously have the desire and the information to be a teacher, but your interpersonal skills are holding you back. You need to sit under a teacher who is strong in these areas and watch them as they interact with others. Or we can get together a couple times a month and I can help you, but I can’t place you in another class until then.”

The Bible tells us that we are to speak the truth in love. I once had a young man who was a pretty good preacher, but he couldn’t carry a tune in the proverbial bushel basket. However, before he preached he liked to sing a special song (special to him but not anyone else). Once, when he got up and began to sing, the teenagers laughed out loud. They thought he was trying to be funny. Finally, some of the people came to me, the pastor, and told me that it was my responsibility to tell this young minister that he was doing more damage than good by trying to sing before he spoke. Because I didn’t want to hurt his feelings I was reluctant, but eventually I broached the subject with him and he said that he already knew he couldn’t carry a tune, but he liked to make a joyful noise. I suggested that he do this at home in the shower rather than before he spoke.

We face this repeatedly in leadership. There are people who think they are ready for the promotion, but we can clearly see that they are not. We have people in positions that they are not effective in and yet we are reluctant to tell the truth in love. This is particularly difficult in the church because we have an obligation to minister to staff members as much as we do to church members and so we often just hope for the best while they flounder and those under them suffer. As leaders we either have to offer training, mentoring, and feedback, and if these don't work we have to make the change.

At the same time we must consider the very real possibility that we need to address issues in our own leadership strengths and weaknesses. Do we really know ourselves? I have always been struck by the fact that when Jesus told the disciples during the Last Supper that one of them would betray Him, they began to ask, “Is it I?” Didn’t they know themselves well enough to answer that question for themselves?

In contrast, Jesus knew who He was, where He came from, and what He had been sent to do. In John 8:14-18, Jesus answers the criticism of the Pharisees with these words:

14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me. NIV

Jesus knew who He was and while He was humble and meek, He was neither weak nor intimidated by others. Neither their criticism nor their praise deterred Him from being who He was and doing what He had been sent by the Father to do. His example is that we need to know who we really are, our strengths and weaknesses, know what we have been called to do, and then do it. We will have our own Pharisees who will only criticize, and we will have our fans who only cheer us on, but we need honest and loving feedback from people we respect and who care about us. If you don’t have someone in your life like that then find one.

IDENTIFYING THE INFLUENCES

Jesus tells us that He is our example (Jn. 13:15). As we read the Gospels we have the opportunity to observe, through the eyes of the evangelists, the life, teaching, practices and character of Christ. If we grew up in a Christian home and attended church we had the opportunity to become immersed in the life of Christ. Through Sunday school, Bible classes, home/family devotions, sermons, personal Bible study, and so forth, we have been impacted by the powerful example of Christ. As a believer we also have the privilege of having the Spirit of Christ alive within us.

The influence, inspiration, and incarnation of Christ can all come together to create in us a model of leadership that reflects that of Christ Himself. If Jesus was the only influence in our lives with respect to a model for leadership we would be well served. However, we all know that there are many other influences, the most primal and perhaps the most powerful being that of our parents. Study after study of human behavior come to the undeniable conclusion that each of us is shaped, influenced, and impacted by our family of origin. Leadership qualities are often formed through things like birth order, our relationship with our parents, how authority was exercised in the home, and how leadership roles were addressed by our parents.

Strong willed and confident parents often raise children who are strong willed and confident. Parents who are easily intimidated or socially withdrawn often see the same behavior reflected in their children. So as a leader it is often helpful to take the time to reflect upon the major influences on our life and how they have affected our leadership paradigms. For example, I once heard an interview with Ted Turner talking about how he never felt affirmed by his father and that nothing was ever quite good enough to please him. So this relationship drove Turner, and perhaps continues to drive Turner, to try to be the best and to gain approval and affirmation for his success. The influence of his father continues to live long after his father has passed away.

I think this kind of reflection upon role models of leadership in our life is important because we often act in ways that are the direct result of those influences. Sometimes we act instinctually, without analysis or reason simply as a result of how we have been “programmed” by the people who have influence our lives. I often see this in marriage counseling with couples who don’t understand that they came into their marriage with expectations for their spouse that were formed in their family of origin. The problem is that the other spouse was raised in a different family and he or she comes with their own expectations from their family of origin. Often, the result is years of misunderstanding and frustration until they are willing to sit down and talk about this and reflect upon those expectations and evaluate the rational for their actions.

For example, I pretty much grew up in a single parent home. When I was a toddler and young child my father was in the Air Force spending time in Vietnam and later was in Germany while we lived in the States. My mother took charge and was very protective of my sister and me. When my father retired from the military and we moved to West Virginia it was difficult for her to relinquish her assertive role as the leader of the family. My father was a quiet man who seemed content to allow my mother to handle all the correction of the children, manage the family finances, as well as function as the spiritual leader of the home. She was outgoing in public and yet very concerned about how she was perceived by others.

Eventually, my father left our home, had an affair, divorced my mother and deserted our family. In fact, for the past thirty years I had not seen my father until this past December (2005) when I tracked him down to a veterans nursing home in Louisiana. I loaded my family into our mini van and we drove down to see him. He was now 73 years old and when I walked into the room I did not recognize him. Interestingly, he seemed obsessed with my mother and with blaming her for all his bad choices.

These are my two earliest role models and as such they influenced my leadership paradigm. If I allowed the worst of these influences to dominate I would be an overbearing dogmatist who blamed others for my mistakes and who, while seeking public approval, lived in fear of rejection. Or I could take the best qualities and be an independent thinker who is not afraid to take charge, who is socially aware of how others feel and who is a comfortable delegating responsibility to others.

In fact, few of us end up with only the positive or the negative influences, but the result is often a combination. The challenge for the leader to is to recognize his or her weaknesses and to maximize our strengths. I recently took a leadership assessment test which pegged me as a combination of being someone who leads primarily by inspiration and secondarily by drive. On a DISC temperamental analysis test this is a DI personality temperament. As such, I have to guard against becoming too competitive or domineering and to maximize the enthusiastic and persuasive qualities of my temperament.

I can look at my mother and see that she has been the major influence and after evaluating myself in light of that influence I am grateful for the sense of humor and outgoing personality she instilled, but I have had to overcome fear of rejection and, as such, the temptation to do only what is popular. We cannot simply dismiss the models that have been instilled, but we can recognize and maximize. Recognize our weaknesses and maximize our strengths. Furthermore, as we grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, we can take on more and more of His persona, of His influence and inspiration as we grow as an individual and as a leader.

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.