Leadership Expectations

Do the people you lead expect you to calm things down, provide stability, and return things to normal? Isn’t that what leadership is supposed to do? In most churches this is the main responsibility of the pastor/leader. After all, the very title of pastor conjures up visions of green fields full of happy sheep frolicking in idyllic joy. To tell the truth, it’s also the expectation of most pastors. Yet pastors are also commissioned to be change initiators and change is almost always messy. 

In his classic book On Becoming a Leader (Bennis, 2003) Bennis made a distinction (perhaps too sharply) between leadership, where the goal is change, and management, where the goal is efficiency (see Suggested Readings – Leadership). Both are important and often both are required skills of the same person in authority. However, because they have different purposes, when people expect one and get another there can be a firestorm of Biblical proportions! 

Take for example the pastor who sees tension building between those in the traditional service and those in the contemporary one. People from each want their service in the “prime time” slot on Sunday morning. Folks from both services are looking to the leadership to provide the solution. They want a fix to their scheduling problem. Suppose however, the pastor determines the problem is deeper and requires attitudinal change on behalf of people in both services. Therefore, he inaugurates a 6 month preaching series on selfishness and unity, allowing the situation to go unresolved and seemingly unaddressed while he stealthily tackles the root issues in the weekly sermon.

The people are expecting a solution (management) and the pastor provides leadership (addressing attitudes and values). Torches are lit, tar is heated, chickens plucked and the pastor now sells used refrigerators in the Arctic. In such a situation both management and leadership are necessary. Appointing a committee composed from people of both services to “study the issue” and report back to the congregation with recommendations, affords the pastor the time necessary to address the attitudes that need to be changed. (If the committee functions like most in the church, the pastor has until the next ice age before recommendations are made anyway…) 

A good pastor/leader employs the right skill set, management or leadership or both, to accomplish the right goal. Knowing which tool you’re using and why, may keep you out of the Arctic.

The Gap

Oh that pesky gap between what we say we believe in and what we do. Its frustrates all of us, whether a corporation or a church, a group or an individual. How can we be so blind? Of course, it’s easy to see the gap in publicized scandals like Enron or in a public individual like Ted Haggard. But closer to home? That’s a different story.

For example, take the communications company which advertises having “the best, fastest, most complete communication solutions on the market,” yet whose departments are so “siloed” (isolated from each other) that support never speaks to sales about an installation procedure glitch, resulting in a 4 week backlog in customer repairs. Or look at a church that insists that love is its hallmark but insists that people come to them instead of themselves going out into the community. These are value/behavior gaps. And often, we’re blind to these gaps until a disaster makes them clear to everyone.

And yet, are we really blind? Isn’t there a nagging feeling that somehow we are not living up to the values we originally embraced? It seems like there is a war going on between doing what is comfortable and living value-able lives. Enter the leader.

A good leader has an over-all perspective of the organization, a grasp on what’s happening each day, and the alignment of people’s behavior and the stated values of the group. Let’s use the examples above, beginning with the communications company. A good leader looks not only at the 4 week backlog but examines the culture of the company to find out why the departments are so “siloed.” Are people reprimanded for bring bad news to management’s attention? Is there “bad blood” between department supervisors? Are people so focused on their own small piece of the company it just doesn’t occur to them to talk to someone? How can the organization change its approach to “hoarded” information? These are the starting questions that might ultimately lead to radical change for the whole group.

Or take the pastor of a church which prides itself on love. A good leader would go beyond starting a food pantry for the needy, although that may be a good step. The people in the congregation need to see that the mission of the church is not about sharing God’s love with themselves but about transforming the world with that love. So a good leader/pastor begins to preach on the Great Commission, the justice-minded Prophets, Jesus’ action with the poor and outcast, reinforcing to everyone the purpose of the church. The pastor goes to the different leadership boards and asks if there is an “outreach component” to their ministry. If not, then how is that ministry contributing to the mission of the church? This in turn starts conversations about Godly values and how to more consistently integrate them into life.

In both examples a good leader realizes the necessity of people adopting new attitudes resulting in new behaviors. The gap between values and behavior is the workplace of leadership.

New Neighbors

There are as many reasons to blog as there are computers on desks (or tables, or stands, etc.). This space explores leadership as well as theology; not the popular leadership of the self-help books but real leadership with an emphasis on values, practicality, academics, and especially, community. Leadership is always about values and community. My values are unabashedly Christian, and although I recognize quite a few of my friends and readers have values that are different, many of the principles of leadership remain the same across the value-systems. There are of course some very interesting differences!

Because leadership is also a community affair, I’ve joined the High Calling network of community bloggers. These are bloggers who share my value system (more or less) and who are writing their own blogs mostly from within the Christian worldview. It’s a great place to explore all kinds of varieties of Christianity. You’ll find their blogs are about poetry, beautiful photography, reflections on art, and on just about any topic you can imagine.  The name High Calling reflects the Christian belief that God takes joy in each of us finding, working, and delighting in our own unique, purpose in Creation. More specially, they emphasize the importance of integrating our values into all we do. Closing that gap between values and behavior, that’s what I want for myself and for the leaders I train.

So click on the High Calling badge and take a stroll around my new neighborhood. I think you’ll like it.

No Answer Leadership?

How important is it for the leader to have the answers to the problems facing an organization? Some would say essential. “How can you lead if you don’t know where you are going?” Or “Isn’t it the leader’s job to get things fixed?”  The answer is, it depends. 

One of the real temptations of leadership is to be seen as the one who has all the answers. Leadership scholars call this “heroic leadership.” Visions of the Lone Ranger, Zorro, or Superman come to mind. There’s something inside us that wants to be a part of the cavalry galloping to the rescue. It’s a temptation we must resist. Why? 

Harvard leadership scholar Ron Heifetz (see Suggested Reading – Leadership) suggests two situations make up challenges that face organizations (actually he’s more nuanced but two will do for this post). The first requires what he calls a “technical” fix. Hire an expert, tweak some management procedures, concentrate on better management in general, these are the things that will meet this kind of everyday challenge.  The challenge may be serious or not, but its solution will lie in the scope of behaviors, skills and thought-patterns that have already served the group well. So, answers are good here.

The second kind of challenge is more difficult. Heifetz calls it the “Adaptive challenge.” Here new ways of thinking must be invented, new attitudes/values must be adopted in order for the group to survive. The adaptive challenge is usually identified by someone who knows the industry, who can see what’s coming down the road. In sailor’s terms, someone who “see’s where the wind is.” Finding solutions is adaptive work. 

If new thinking is to be invented, new attitudes adopted, new behaviors implemented, then Change, with a capital “C,” is necessary. When such Change is mandated from the top down, it rarely lasts and risks “blowing-up” the organization. Lasting change requires the organization’s people to find solutions. They must be mobilized by someone who understands the adaptive challenge and can lead the group to do the inventing, adopting and implementing necessary to meet the challenge and thrive. What’s needed is not an “answer man” but a leader prepared to ask good questions and help people do the work necessary to make the group thrive. 

Have you seen this kind of leadership?

Leadership Applied

How should leadership be applied in the church? Servant Leadership is a fine philosophy but not very good at spelling out specifics (see my post Theology, Leadership and Community part two). How does a church leader intent on bringing about real change go about leading other church people? 

In my last post I agreed with Burns (1978) that leadership must connect with the values and motivations of the people in the organization. I also observed that for church people, these values and motivations are found in their theology.  Addressing the gap between behavior and stated values is the work of leadership. How?

 Following Ron Heifetz’s excellent writings on adaptive work (see Suggested Readings – Leadership) here are five stages helpful in doing leadership: 

1. Get On The Balcony – A leader must be able to determine where the gap is between people’s behavior (including his or her own) and their values. Getting on the balcony means gaining the distance necessary from everyday events to have an overall perspective of the organization and the challenges it faces.
2. Create A Holding Environment – A safe place where diverse groups holding dissimilar opinions can discuss (honestly and without repercussions) various points of view. 
3. Maintain disciplined attention – People discussing values often feel deeply about them. Conversations can become heated. Blame-shifting and scapegoating are “work-avoidance” behaviors requiring the leader to step-in, reframe and deepen the conversation. 
4. Give The Work Back To The People – A temptation for a leader is to be the one with the answers. Followers may look to leader-answers to short-cut the work. Yet lasting change can only come from people interacting with the values they hold and crafting their own solutions. Paternalism is no one’s friend. (See my post Theology, Leadership and Community part one). 
5. Protect Voices Of Dissent – Simply because someone “poorly packages” their ideas (speaking beyond their authority, ignoring protocol, etc.) does not mean their thoughts are not worthwhile.

And in addition, churches have a special leadership advantage that other organizations do not. 

Each Sunday people gather to hear a motivational message from the Pastor. The CEO’s I know would move mountains for their employees to show up voluntarily each week to hear about the values of their organization. A pastor who is serious about leading the congregation will ensure that Sunday’s messages address the gap perceived between values and behavior.

All these steps are predicated on the relationship of the leader to the people. Effective church leadership is both relational and theological.

The Foundation of Leadership

What is the basis, the foundation of leadership?  Power, position, authority, personality, relationship or something else? How should leadership be applied? 

James MacGregor Burns in Leadership (Burns, 1978) argued for a psychological conception of power, a connection to others if you will as opposed to being a property or possession. He famously distinguished between power-wielders (the application of brute force) and leaders. His point? Leadership is a relationship between follower and leader.

Leaders must assess collective motivation – the hierarchies of motivation in both leaders and followers – as studiously as they analyze power bases of potential followers and rival leaders. To perceive the working of leadership in social causation as motivational and volitional rather than simply as ‘economic’ or ‘ideological’ or ‘institutional’ is to perceive not a lineal sequence of stimulus-response ‘sets’ or ‘stages’…but a rich pulsating stream of leadership-followership forces flowing through the whole social process. (pp.437)

Leadership is about connecting with the motivations/values of others. The leader must know the collective group well enough to know what they think, what excites them, what they value. Therefore, leadership must be relational. How is this done? Although the principles of leadership are the same for both corporate and church, there are differences in application between the two, just as there are between any for-profit and non-profit organization. I’ll begin with the church and return to for-profit leadership in another post. 

Generally speaking, when a person chooses to attend church they embrace, for the most part, the values of that church, usually contained in a statement of faith, a confession or a creed of some sort. The motivations and values of church people are concretized in their church’s theology. However, there is almost always a gap between the behaviors of people and the values they espouse. The leader’s job is to mobilize people to address that gap. How specifically? See my next post.

Theology, Leadership and Community (part two)

So…what’s the culture of leadership like at your place of worship? How do authority, position, and church office fit together?  Many leaders these day hang their hats on Servant Leadership, a concept where “the servant-leader is servant first…” (Greenleaf, 2007, p. 27). Success, according to that way of thinking, is measured by how much a person grows as a person. It’s a fine philosophy and certainly fits well with the mission of the church. But there are some real problems in its application to various churches.  

It is susceptible to a creeping arrogance and paternalism that frankly characterizes too much of the church these days. “I know what’s best for you. After all, I’m making these decisions on your behalf. I have your best interests at heart.”  Those who are already in control can rationalize their position by simply appealing to their “altruistic” intentions while retaining power and decision-making authority. That doesn’t mean Servant-leadership isn’t a fine philosophy. It’s just a little weak on the application part.  

In contrast, relational leaders emphasize the importance of everyone taking responsibility for church direction. Yes, there are and should be leaders who have positional authority, but ideally such authority is based on gifting and partnership rather political election or appointment. These leaders are driven to mobilize people to craft solutions to hurdles and obstacles, rather than selling “buy-in” into the leader’s idea of what a solution (or vision) is all about.  

Although this approach works in the corporate world, (Block, 1996) it really shines in the church. Christianity teaches that each of us is empowered for a unique ministry that God has designed. In fact, in addition to gifting a person, God calls that person to life tasks. Therefore, relational leadership can be evaluated, in part, by how well the people are mobilized to find solutions to the challenges facing them. This pays due respect to individual responsibility, accountability, and calling. Relational leaders equip people for the work of ministry.

Theology, Leadership, and Community

What is the culture of leadership like in your place of worship? 

Paternalistic leaders steal accountability and ownership from the people they lead and place responsibility for decisions in the hands of management. In the corporate world that’s called patriarchy (Block, 1996). In the church we call it “shepherding.” 

I know, I know; shepherding is supposed to be a good term that emphasizes the care of the shepherd for the flock. Psalm 23 is a beautiful psalm about the care of God being likened to a shepherd who cares for sheep. It’s a wonderful psalm and a great image that emphasizes an important aspect of God’s character. It is NOT, however, a program for how leadership ought to be done. 

Most churches are populated by adults, not sheep. In fact, most American churches require a certain age before you can join. Maturity and responsibility are expected from church members. Christianity teaches that people are accountable for their actions, to God and to one another. People are not dumb sheep that have to be shown how to eat, drink, and rest (well, ok, MOST people aren’t like that). 

Think about this. It used to be that Moses had to go to the mountain to get a vision from God. No longer. In this day and age, each person has instant access to God, each one can pray, each one can read Scripture. So instead of church leaders “going to get vision from God” and delivering it to the people, shouldn’t they instead be canvassing the people to see what God is saying to them? We do believe in a communicating God, right? We do believe he is the One Who placed the people in the congregation, right? 

Corporations frequently talk about the importance of “buy-in” when it comes to vision. Think how much time and effort would be saved in trying to “sell” the vision to people, if the vision was originally crafted from the individuals who, having already heard from God, contributed to it? This is partnership and it is the opposite of patriarchy. Great and fast-growing corporations practice this type of “organizational flattening.” How much more should this be a hallmark of a Christian culture which prizes love, community, personal piety, and responsibility? 

So then… what about authority, position, and church office? Next post…

Leadership & Theology?

Why write about theology when discussing leadership? 

Georgia Sorenson, writing on James MacGregor Burns, observed that he changed modern leadership studies, which historically focused on effectiveness by insisting leadership has moral dimensions, in fact, that leadership as a relationship, has a moral core of motivations (in Couto, R. (Ed.) 2007, pp.24-25). Since then, the bulk of academic leadership studies has focused on the values of both leader and led. The trick for many corporations is identifying the values of their group. 

Not a problem for church people. Theology is the codification of the values of church goers. In other words, if you want to know the values of a group of Christians, look to their theological commitments. They may not be well articulated or executed but they do represent the group’s stated value system. Leader scholar Ron Heifetz convincingly argues that change leadership addresses the gap between values and behavior or between competing values. 

Lest that sound too simple, let me complicate it some. Theology is different from doctrine. To modify slightly Lindbeck’s (1984) analogy, doctrines are like words and theologies like sentences. While people are agreed as to the basic meaning of the word, its application in a sentence is how it truly operates. So too with doctrine. Doctrines are arranged in terms of hierarchy, one building on another, one being in relationship to another. Which one is most important? Which one starts us off? How do they relate to one another? How should they be applied?  The answers to those questions (and many others) becomes the theology and the culture of the group. This is where modern leadership theory and theology intersect.

By the way, everyone has a theology. Have you given thought to yours?

 

Leadership Misunderstood

The widely regarded founder of modern leadership studies, James MacGregor Burns, observed, “Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth” (Burns, 1978, p. 3). Why is this so? 

Too many of us think of the leader as the “hero.” This colors our understanding of leadership. We grew up entranced by one part of the leadership equation, the leader…forgetting all about the follower. As a consequence, look how leadership is defined: what the leader does, what the resources the leader has (power, authority, position, charisma, skills, giftedness), and what the leader should do “next.” These are all important elements but we’re missing the big picture, we’re missing the relationship. 

And the popular literary approach to leadership doesn’t help much. The leader is the hero who has great stories to tell. In fact, many books on leadership are in essence a compilation of leadership proverbs. Don’t get me wrong, stories are good. I like a good collection of “leadership nuggets” as much as the next person. The problem is that the stories are used to offer up a principle or a piece of advice usually focused on the leader. We’re paying attention to only part of the leadership equation. 

What Burns and others after him realized is that leadership is about a relationship. A relationship between a leader-follower. And while you can offer all kinds of advice and helpful comments, stringing nuggets together cannot do justice to a relationship. Especially when it’s focused on the leader alone. Why is leadership so misunderstood? We’ve only been looking at one part of it.