Christian Leadership
I heard a thought-provoking message by Andy Stanley on leadership at the Catalyst West conference. His central theme was that leaders need to play to their strengths rather than spend their time in areas of weakness. They have strengths because of talents and God-offered gifts; and those talents and gifts get buried as they become consumed with other areas.
Here were his reasons why many leaders miss this:
1. Some buy into the myth of being well-rounded. (Great achievers aren’t well-rounded. They are men and women who play to their strengths and delegate their weaknesses. Their goal isn’t to be a well-rounded leader, but to build a well-rounded church.)
2. Leaders forget to distinguish between their authority and their core competencies. (Leaders should leverage their authority as little as possible, making as few decisions as possible. These are transforming words: “I don’t know. I’ll let you make that decision.”)
3. Some leaders are not able to distinguish between their competencies and their non-competencies. (A leader isn’t the smartest person in an organization; just the leader of it.)
4. Some leaders feel guilty delegating their weaknesses. (However, a leader’s weakness is someone else’s opportunity and strength.)
5. Some leaders won’t take the time to develop other leaders. (Leadership isn’t primarily about getting things done right but about getting things done through other people.)
What do you think? Does that connect with you?
________
However, I’m also struck by these words from Scott Bessenecker: “Jesus wasn’t nearly as obsessed with leadership as American Christians seem to be. In fact, looking at the Gospels, quite the opposite is true. There are eighty-six references to the word follow — four times as many references as there are for lead — and most of the uses of follow are positive, many of them direct commands. ‘Follow me,’ for example, was a phrase Jesus used twenty times in the Gospels. Jesus was far and away more concerned about his disciples’ ability to follow well than he was about their ability to lead well.”
(How to Inherit the Earth: Submitting Ourselves to a Servant Savior
He contrasted that with a discovery that the word lead occurs twenty-one times in the gospels — almost always in a negative sense. “None of them are commands to the disciples. Jesus never instructs his disciples to ‘become the leaders you were meant to be.’”
For more on this radical understanding of servanthood and leadership, here is a message Randy Harris preached recently at Highland.
I would hasten to add the obvious:
6. All leaders but One are fully human. They are susceptible to jealousy, to too much comfort with power, and to feelings of threat when others are more gifted in certain areas of leadership. Team play can be challenging. A common goal does not always mean a common strategy for reaching it. (See also football.)
To qb, the obsession in contemporary church teaching with leadership (cf. John Maxwell et al.) is, well, er, uhhh (to avoid being graphic): peristaltogenic. (Google it and enjoy.) When we in the rank and file obsess on it, we end up sounding as though we’re clamoring for a king. The story of I Samuel 8-9 seems to have a lot to say about our obsession with so-called leadership qualities, and yet Bessenecker’s take seems more apt, bible-wise and Jesus-wise.
qb the contrarian
All of this really connects with me. Randy’s sermon is excellent. It is counterintuitive to think that great leadership can flow from followership and is actually rooted there. It is beautiful to witness leaders who really get it. These are the folks that many line up to follow and will follow anywhere.
Your post seems to put Andy Stanley’s thoughts in contradiction to Bessenecker’s. I do think talented, effective leaders practice the principles that Stanley outlines while following Jesus at the same time. These two themes go hand in hand. A good leader leads through collaboration and leaning on others. Just like Jesus did.
I think the key is to not be obsessed with becoming a “great leader”. If the focus is there that is the wrong place.
leadership’s been on my mind a lot lately — i recently finished a short leadership series on my blog — concepts learned while coaching soccer. and i don’t know that i see the two thoughts above as being diametrically opposed to one another. a leader who is truly concerned with those whom he is leading, is not going to flaunt his “authority” or dwell on leadership and instilling leadership in others. i think he’s going to himself focus on following well. every mentor needs a mentor. every good leader has a good leader. leadership skills don’t have to be taught into individuals, if they are themselves following good leaders. [but that doesn't change what makes a good leader; rather it speaks to leadership being contagious more than it is learned from a book.]
i think the reason we’re so obsessed with leadership “training” is that many who want to be in leadership (or are) don’t themselves desire to be followers (of another individual) — yet they’re more than happy to be a follower of a list of 10 purpose-driven and highly effective principles of leadership. the book doesn’t require accountability, humility, or submission.
for much the same reason, many today opt to live under the old covenant… they prefer to follow a list of rules than to follow a Lord who requires complete submission in every aspect of life.
Amy – I just looked above and it does kind of sound like that, but I didn’t necessarily to put them in contrast. I, too, see the continuity between their perspectives. The tension, I think, is found in the obsession there seems to be with leadership, when the focus of Jesus is on followership. Thanks!
The “focus on strengths not weaknesses” message is all the rage in management circles these days. And I think with good reason. I think many achievers and Type-As create burn out and frustration by trying to be good at everything – and especially trying to shore up their weaknesses and turn them into strengths – a usually doomed and inevitably frustrating endeavor. I think building on strengths and simply creating hedges around your weaknesses is much more sound advice with a much higher probability of resulting in productive, fulfilled people.
This idea also plays into the question of “church leadership’ as I’ve seen it “taught” in many places. We have lots of programs for young people that talk about leadership – when in reality they are about very specific practices and a very narrow idea of what leadership is in the congregational context. How many poor unmusical souls have undergone “church leadership” training to be song leaders? Or folks petrified of public speaking told they should teach class or preach? These unbiblical ideas of leadership have displaced what Christlike leadership actually is (submitting ourselves; serving others) in favor of narrow traditions.
Yet when these ideas and programs are challenged, we’re told folks should stretch themselves, get out of their “comfort zones” and learn to be “leaders” – meaning conforming themselves to these specific practices/vocations regardless of the person’s innate talents, gifts, personality or strengths/weaknesses. Opening ourselves to the idea of complete personhood as the fulfillment of Christian maturity is a critical step in leaving the secular world’s ideas of leadership and accomplishment – and should be a key differentiator in church life.
Wow, this is right up my alley. Those could have plucked (and perhaps were) right out of corporate America. Leadership, true leadership, is a chasm in industry and in the church. Lee Iaccoca saved Chrysler in the early 80′s…an incredible crisis manager. He was not a leader. He made EVERY decision, developed no one, and when he left, Chrysler faltered again.
I read a minister’s blog a couple months ago where he stated “if I wasn’t in charge at this church, I probably wouldn’t go to church.” I couldn’t believe it. It was a man who took over a church, ran it into the ground to the point where they lost their building. He quit, and is now doing a church plant in another state. Unless he gets some leadership development, that church has a high chance of failure too! Good man, poor leader.
Chris
Thank you, thank you, for this post!!
The first full-time ministry I served in, one of my elders asked if he could meet with me for about an hour for an informal review. He spent that entire hour discussing my strengths. I asked him “what about my weaknesses?” He responded by telling me not to worry about my weaknesse but just excell in my strengths because that is who God has made me.
It was a very affirming meeting.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Thought-provoking comments from Stanley and I think they are spot-on.Thanks for giving me something to discuss in our staff meeting next week.
I am loving me some Andy Stanley. I hear him every year at Catalyst here in Atlanta. He has a lot of wisdom. Thanks for posting his thoughts!