Leadership Disaster

Sometimes the seeds for leadership disasters are sown at the very beginning of a leader’s tenure. 

Rev. Jack, in the market for a new church, found a new pastoring opportunity. Although the church had grown over the last few years, it had seen decline in attendance and finances as the pastoral search process took its toll. Like many churches, it was proving to be a year-long search and people were becoming fearful about the future. 

While Jack was interviewing during the week-long candidating process, he sized up the problem in this church. People spoke to Jack about the previous pastor, characterizing him as a “program guy,” someone who started a lot things in the church but always seemed to be asking people to become more and more involved. The congregation was tired. They wanted someone who would focus on Sunday sermons, visit the sick and administer the sacraments. They wanted a strong preacher. 

This was music to Jack because he strongly believed in the “primacy of the pulpit,” the idea that preaching is the defining function of the pastor and the center of church ministry. He told the church he understood the problem, laid out his plan on how to fix it, and the church hired him and heaved a collective sigh of relief. 

Jack made several mistakes in this scenario. 

First, he naively supposed that he could ascertain “the problem” with the church in a one week interview period. He had no way of putting the comments of the people he spoke to in context because he didn’t know the people. Nor did he factor in the growth of the church in the immediate years before the search process began. He did not take seriously the importance of “getting to know people” in developing his understanding of the church. 

Second, he clung to a notion of “heroic leadership.” Jack saw himself as the “hero,” riding in to save the day. He would save the church by providing the solution people needed, i.e. he would preach really well and the church would grow. Jack believed that church ministry revolved around preaching, which fit well into his “heroic” notions about leadership. His idea of “equipping people for ministry” was to tell them what they needed to do. For Jack, leadership was about the leader getting others to do what he thought best. 

Third, when Jack spoke forcefully to the people about “their problem and his solution” he lowered the collective urgency so necessary for change. What he communicated was, “Hire me and your problem will be solved.” He stole responsibility from the people to do the work necessary for real change. He did not realize that lasting solutions must be crafted by and with the followers. 

Jack left the church 18 months later, complaining about the “spectator mentality” of the congregation, never realizing he had sabotaged his ministry from the start.

Leadership Snip-Its

I stumbled on a great (if that’s the right word) list of why churches stall. Pastors and church leaders can benefit from thinking through the list. If you look closely, each reason can be traced back to an underlying (false) assumption about the church. It’s so important for churches (and any other organization) to keep their focus right.  Check it out here.

Leadership Snip-Its

All leaders fail at one time or another.  Even (especially?) the very best. Over at Seth Godin’s place, he suggests there is a hierarchy to failure and furthermore, we should deliberately follow it.  Definitely worth thinking about.  Check it out.

Relational Leadership (Part Four)

Describing Relational Leadership is what my last posts have been about. Relational Leadership, as explained in Part Two, is the recognition that leaders and followers are in relationship to one another. Good leaders must therefore connect with the values and motivations of followers. In other words, a Relational Leader understands that the culture of a group, whether a church or a business, needs to reflect the values of the group and that those same values must permeate the entire workplace top to bottom.

So what does Relational Leadership look like in action? Here is an example.

Tony Hsieh who recently sold his company for $850 million was interviewed by Anthony Tjan over at HBR and opined,  “I am also a big believer in optimizing company performance and driving culture, using intrinsic motivators (like meaningful roles with learning and growth) over extrinsic factors (such as compensation). In a prior post I wrote about how to make employees happier. Extrinsic motivations like pay and status are certainly needed (people need to eat, after all), but it is the intrinsic motivation that drives purpose and long-term commitment.”

A Relational Leader connects with the intrinsic values and motivations of people. As a result people work harder and are happier because they believe they are engaged in something significant and meaningful to them.

Many leaders of businesses and churches say they are driven by the core values of their group but in fact they are not consistent. Instead they allow elements of the organization (org chart, constitution, tradition) to be the drivers in terms of how business gets done. In essence power, authority, and position become reasons for why things are the way they are.

Hsieh recognizes this fact and observes, “For us the difference is that we wanted to come up with committable core values, meaning we’re actually willing to hire and fire people based on them, regardless of, or independent of, their specific job performance.”

Just imagine, a board member or leader who, although competent, was made to step down because they were not expressing the core values of the group. And why not? After all, a good leader is a champion of the organization’s core values . 

When people are not held accountable for expressing the values of the group, leaders unwittingly communicate that core values are not really important. As a result, those who truly are committed feel de-valued and the morale and the spirit of the whole organization plummets. Perplexed leaders begin hearing charges of being “two-faced” without realizing that the source of people’s frustration is actually their own inaction.

Many in the church have recognized in the Bible, Mathew 18 as a kind of 3 step procedure to solving this kind of personnel problem. The offending individual is first approached one on one; then with one or two people in authority; and finally they are “fired” if no change is made. No matter the context, religious or secular, Relational Leaders adapt these principles to their work context and then act to make value alignment a priority for their organization.

Relational Leadership (Part Three)

We’ve said previously Relational Leadership is based on the insight that leaders and followers are in a relationship. We’ve also said that Relational Leadership is about connecting with the values and motivations of the followers. So how do we import Relational Leadership into an organization without “blowing it up?”

We start with the leadership team. Cleve Stevens writing over at Forbes recommends taking the leadership team off-site to have a heart to heart conversation. His focus on self-awareness is a good start. What kind of leader do I want to be? How do others perceive my leadership? Are there “personal stories” lurking under the surface that seem to drive my decisions? 

Another good exercise for the leadership team would be to list the major decisions made by the team in the last 30-60 days. Examine each decision for the following Relational Leadership components: 

• How do the decisions made reflect the values of the organization?
• Were the people who are affected by the decision given input?
• Did we unwittingly take responsibility away from someone (i.e., treat them like a child instead of a partner)?
• Could the decision have been made on a “lower level?” If so, why wasn’t it?
•  How thorough/complete was our communication of the decision to others?

The answers to these questions will be revealing. If the conversation seems to be monopolized by references to positional authority and power instead of maximizing human potential in solving problems, you realize you have a way to go. However, be encouraged. You’ve taken the first steps to correcting misconceptions of leadership. Your leaders will remember these questions the next time they are in session. Make sure they do!  

What does Relational Leadership look like in action?  Part Four will answer that question.

Leadership Snip-its

Here is a short selection of some thoughtful proverbs on pain and leadership from Dave Travis over at the Leadership Network. Although designed for pastors and educators, it’s definitely applicable for all organizational leaders.

Relational Leadership (Part Two)

What is Relational Leadership? We sketched out a definition of Relational Leadership in our last post. Relational Leadership, simply put, is the recognition that leaders and followers are in relationship to one another. Good leaders must therefore connect with the values and motivations of followers. 

Ok, but what does Relational Leadership look like in the real world? 

Here’s an example of what it is not. 

The financial board of a small local church was sifting through the bills when they received some all too common news. The month’s health insurance bill for Ken, the new music minister, was almost double what it had been. The cause was not surprising, he and his wife just had their first baby boy. The board launch into a spirited discussion of how tight the budget was and that “something needs to be done tonight” or the new bill would continue to “bust the budget” all year long. 

A discussion was held about what the music minister’s contract said, revealing that the church never mentioned a dollar amount for health care, only that they would pay for it. That led to stories around the table of how all the corporations in the area were requiring employees to share in health care costs. After 20 minutes of these stories, people shook their heads bemoaning the cost of health care and determined the young minister needed to “share the burden” of health care costs. The portion determined was a significant percentage of the overall salary. 

How would Relational Leadership critique this situation? 

The board determined it was their job as leaders to allocate and decide. Their conception of leadership was about power and authority, not relationship. Therefore, despite a nine month pregnancy, they were “surprised” when the health insurance bill came due. They never saw themselves in a relationship with the minister. 

The board made the decision to change Ken’s contract without getting any input from him. Legalities aside, in doing so, the church violated its own values. Although it emphasized  “everyone has voice as we serve God together,” there was no voice for Ken. Second, they  treated Ken like a child instead of a partner. A Relational Leader recognizes that leader and follower are both responsible for carrying out the goals of the organization. Ken wasn’t given that chance. Third, the verdict to significantly dock Ken’s salary was made one night at one meeting without warning. This would be a blow to the motivation and morale of anyone receiving such news. 

This top-down approach to “leadership” is the opposite of Relational Leadership, yet is prevalent in a good many churches and small organizations. How can Relational Leadership be instituted without “blowing up the church?” See Part Three.

Relational Leadership (Part One)

What is Relational Leadership? Some define it as leadership by consensus (also derisively known as “Pooled Ignorance”). Others think Relational Leadership is about creating good relationships in an organization (of course, “good for whom” is always nebulous). Still others think Relational Leadership is about playing politics, paying attention to what others want in order to get what you want.

The newest definition I’ve seen is an application of Daniel Goleman’s excellent insights from Emotional Intelligence to the leadership process. The Relational Leader, according to some, is a social leader. However, none of these definitions get at the heart of real Relational Leadership.

Relational Leadership is the application of leadership scholar Burns’ (1978) insight that leaders and followers are in a relationship together. This is significant because it recognizes that leadership can be done without charismatic power or influence. The work of the Relational Leader is to mobilize people to address the need for positive change by connecting with the values and beliefs of the people, thus elevating the entire leadership enterprise to a level above influence, power, position or manipulation.

The Relational Leader is also an ethical leader. In other words, she connects with the values and beliefs of her people.

In the church, the values and beliefs of people are explicitly stated in the theology of the congregation, a statement of faith, a creed, or a confession. This is not to say that people carry it out real well, just that the organization agrees “these are the things we believe in.”

It’s a little different for business. In a secular organization, organizational leadership studies identify three “levels” of cultural belief: artifacts, espoused values, and basic assumptions (Schein,1992). Nevertheless, Relational Leadership in this sector is still about the leader connecting with the values and beliefs of the followers.

Part Two answers the question: What does Relational Leadership actually look like?

Leadership Snip-its

Here’s a great little leadership nugget over at Seth Godin’s place. Would that everyone would engage in discussions like this. Imagine the savings in time, energy and relationships. Although as a church leader, I might push-back on his conclusion, just a little.

Leadership, Crisis, and the Theft of Responsibility

Jack believed he was a responsible leader. He felt deeply the responsibility that rested on his shoulders. He wanted to make sure that no matter what happened on his shift, he would be there to make it right. When the economy tanked, he went into top gear. He increased his control over projects and his people. He attempted to double and triple check everything to make sure no one “fell down on the job.” He began spending more time at the office and taking more work home.

Increasingly of late though, Jack seemed to become more irritable. Co-workers who had labored so well with him in the past, now became distant, almost curt.  As things went from bad to worse in the industry, his response was to attempt to gain more control of how things were going, requiring more reports and longer hours from everyone. In turn, people became more frustrated with “the new Jack” and his increasingly autocratic ways.  He grew shorter and shorter with others, especially family. After a while it was clear that the effectiveness and productivity of his department were eroding and miscommunication happened more and more often. 

Jack’s understanding of a leader’s role was sadly deficient. His problem was not so much that he didn’t know the values of delegating authority or getting along with others. What was happening was that his own insecurities were driving him to steal responsibility from his people. 

It is natural for leaders to respond to crisis by attempting more control. After all, in times of crisis people look to leaders for answers. However, true leadership mobilizes people to meet the challenges of a situation, drawing forth the necessary answers from followers. 

The greater the number of people trying to fix the problem, albeit in an organized manner, the greater the likelihood of someone coming up with the right answers. Leadership is always about a collaboration of leader and follower. Thus crises are best met by the group, not the leader alone.