Captain Russell Grenfell, in The Bismarck Episode, wrote: “Every ship’s chief officer followed, roughly, this procedure: Analyse the situation as it is and the way in which it developed; visualize all the possibilities; assess them to determine probabilities; estimate the strength of the forces opposed and of our resources; decide upon a general plan; communicate it to those who should know; move to carry out the plan with economy of effort and material; be sure to calculate the chances of prolongation of action; and, most important, shoot at the proper target.”
We’ve seen that leadership demands a certain self-understanding. A grasp of what leaders are is a necessary foundation. Now come the tasks to be done.
What are the most important responsibilities of a leader?
Maintain the Vision
David Rockefeller was once quoted as saying, “The number one function of the top executive is to establish the purpose of the organization.” For pastors, too, perhaps the most important job is to articulate and maintain the church’s vision.
Like the hub of a wheel, everything else grows out of this. Until the vision is established, you have all kinds of trouble. Scripture says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” The New American Standard Version focuses on the way they perish—”Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained.” To be restrained, to be concentrated in purpose, is essential to accomplishment, and that is why the leader must define why this organization exists. What’s its purpose?
A leader must personify the vision, be dedicated to it personally. For example, someone totally oriented to personal evangelism would have trouble projecting a vision for biblical scholarship. He wouldn’t have time to be a scholar. The leader must put forward a vision he can be honest about.
Some leaders say, “What would this church like for me to say its purpose is? That’s what I’ll say … even though I don’t agree with their statement and I’m not going to fulfill it.”
I call these kinds of leaders “clouds without rain.” In a parched land, they look promising. But they float on over, bringing only a shadow.
A vision has to be something both the congregation and the pastor can share. If the pastor has, for instance, a gift for pastoral visitation, the vision must include that emphasis. If the pastor is “growth-oriented,” this should be included in the vision.
In maintaining the vision, here are several keys for leaders to keep in mind.
1. Define it specifically. In my view, nothing is properly defined until you write it down. Writing forces you to be specific; it takes the fuzz off your thinking.
When I was working for Maxey Jarman, anytime I was fuzzy in my thinking he would force me to write him a memo.
Once I said, “I can’t write it.”
He said, “The only reason you can’t write it is because you don’t know it. When you know it, you can write it.”
Writing your purpose forces you to be disciplined in your thinking. You come to see the need for a vision broad enough that everything you do can be tied in. But the vision must also be focused enough that it sets some boundaries. The vision must state what you will do and what you won’t do.
Take, for instance, a statement such as “We exist for the glory of God.” That’s great for somebody who wants to sound pious or doesn’t want to be evaluated, but it isn’t specific enough to help an organization make decisions about what ministries to emphasize.
2. Express it so other people understand it. A good statement of purpose is straightforward. It comes right to the point.
But it is more than a slogan or an image. Slogans are advertising. They’re not really statements of vision or goal. An image is what you want people to believe you are, which may be a prostitution of the vision.
The vision can’t be arrived at quickly. It calls for a great deal of objectivity. We have to know what we can do and what we feel called to do.
Some churches set a purpose “that our people know the Scripture.” That’s the central vision. Other churches focus on “realizing your potential.” On the other hand, one of the fastest-growing churches in the South has Christian fellowship as its purpose. You hear such phrases as “It’s neat to be a Christian.” Everybody likes everybody, and you feel good when you come—the members are essentially consumers of friendship. Now you may argue about whether that’s a proper basis for a church, but at least they are very clear about it.
Too many congregations have no purpose larger than to be an average church doing average things. That doesn’t require great leadership. It requires what I call “maintenance leadership.” It’s not building for the future.
Some will object, “We don’t want to be a narrow church. We want to have a wide ministry that encompasses many visions.”
If you get too many and don’t sort them into primary and secondary categories, you end up splintered. You’re better off having a purpose that strongly attracts certain people than trying to be broad and shallow. When that happens, you really don’t accomplish much at all. If you build a staff of four or five people, all of whom have different ideas about the purpose of church, you can’t get the intensity, the drive you need. (Single focus is the strength of many parachurch organizations: They do one thing well. Those who spread too widely develop serious problems.)
If you don’t focus sharply, you can also get into the confusion of doing one thing for the purpose of something else. Unfortunately, some “Bible studies” these days are mainly for the purpose of Christian social contact, a place to go park your Mercedes and have lunch.
3. Get both organizational and personal acceptance of the vision. Organizational acceptance means the majority will vote for the motion. A few churches will even back it unanimously. But voting for the organization to do something and voting to be personally involved are two different things. Leaders get people to commit themselves personally, not just to provide paid staff.
4. Repeat the purpose over and over. One very effective leader used this phrase in his vision setting: “Say it simply, boldly, and repeat it often.” Any leader who doesn’t constantly repeat the essence of the vision, perhaps in different words, will find the people straying. The purpose must be repeated and repeated and repeated because it gives meaning to the organization; it produces intensity and direction.
A church without a clear purpose can get involved in all sorts of tangential activities. People assume anything that brings people to the church building should be part of the program. If your purpose is “to get as many people through the doors as possible,” anything that attracts is legitimate.
I met a young minister who had gotten sold on the “find a need and fill it” marketing idea. He wanted to use his church as a free employment agency for people who had been laid off. Certainly, people need jobs. If he was just looking for a need to fill, he’d found one. But I asked him, “Is that why you were called into the ministry—to find jobs for people?”
He allowed as how it wasn’t, and he was able to focus the vision a bit more clearly after that.
When you have a clear vision, you view everything in light of it. Every once in a while you sit down and say, “Let’s stack every activity in this church up against our purpose.” That affects what a church does and how it spends its money in the future.
I spoke at a church not too long ago that claimed its vision was to be staunchly evangelistic. Yet they had fewer conversions in a year’s time than they had staff members and officers. It made you wonder how long since they’d realigned their direction with their vision.
Gather Others around the Vision
The second function of a leader is to coagulate followers around the vision, not around himself.
This is where integrity comes in. If a leader coagulates followers around himself—I call that embezzlement. Using personal magnetism as a means of getting things done is, to me, manipulation.
For example, to say, “Would you do me a favor and teach this Sunday school class?” lacks integrity. We’re not in the business of asking people to do personal favors for us; we want them to express their commitment to Christ. (Unless the person has a gift of teaching, he isn’t doing anybody a favor by teaching a class. The people are usually doing him a favor by listening.) Genuine leadership gathers people around the purpose of the organization. Toward that end, leaders need to recognize several subtle dynamics.
Decisions are not commitments. The first is short-term, the second is long-term.
People decide short-term to work for a specific emphasis; long-term commitment is aimed at the ultimate purpose. Both are necessary. People committed only to the long-term vision and not to specific tasks will not accomplish much. The short-term commitment produces the activity. But that must be judged by the overall vision.
In evangelism, we see a lot of decisions. Billy Graham is right in talking at his crusades about decisions, not commitments. Decisions are often like New Year’s resolutions. The leader’s job is to move people from decision to commitment.
(I’ve observed that this is one difference between the spoken word and the written word. Speakers are most effective at bringing people to decisions, but generally it takes reading to bring people to commitment.)
Wise leaders know that when they get a decision, even a group decision, they have not gotten commitment. One of the worst mistakes a leader can make is getting a group to decide something they will not commit to. In the emotional moment of decision, you can assume they’re committed, but things will fall apart.
Recognize the “driving wheels.” There’s a difference between people who provide the momentum in a group and those who go along for the ride. Wise leaders know that if they get the driving wheels committed, they will bring the others along. Without the commitment of the driving wheels, the organization moves unsteadily.
The best way to persuade the driving wheels is not with emotion but with comprehension. I first heard this from my close friend Jack Turpin, founder and president of Hallmark Electronics, in a speech on sustained excellence. He has no lasting respect for short-term excellence. “Anybody who can reach excellence should try to sustain it,” he said. And he knows how hard that is.
He went on to say the only way people will perform excellently over the long term is if they fully comprehend what they’re doing. A decision based on emotional fervor won’t last. A fully comprehended commitment will.
This means leaders must be honest about the vision, the effort necessary, and reasons for expending it. We’ll spend a whole chapter later discussing motivation versus manipulation, but for now I’ll just say that lasting motivation is really persuasion by comprehension. If you have to hide the reasons you want a person to do something, you are probably manipulating, and you’re not likely to get long-term commitment or sustained excellence.
The way to motivate the driving wheels is to say, “Do you agree this is something worth doing? If so, let’s commit to it together.”
Know when it’s time to change the vision. Leaders know the situation does not hold still forever. In the church, one indication the vision needs adjustment is the demographic trend. If a congregation is maintaining its size, but the big percentage of new members are older, and the young people are leaving the church, it’s losing the future leadership. Now, if you ask, “How are your numbers?” the pastor may say, “Holding steady,” but it’s getting to be an old-folks’ home.
If the vision of the leadership is to start a retirement home, fine—they’ve got it made. But if not, they must do something to recenter the program. The goal is to make the interest of the church identical with the membership of the church.
Know the Value of Administration
Leadership and management are two different things. Many good leaders are not good administrators, and good managers are not aways leaders.
As president, Jimmy Carter was a better executive than he was a leader. He would read up to three hundred pages of reports before breakfast. He was one of our best-informed presidents, but he had trouble getting people to follow his leadership.
Ronald Reagan’s strength has been leadership, not management. The press criticizes him because he often can’t answer technical questions. But he is a leader. He’s able to provide a vision for the organization, to get people feeling good about what’s happening. People who don’t like his leadership call him “the Great Communicator,” suggesting that if a person is a talker he’s not a thinker. But communication skills are key to leadership. Reagan delegates the administration.
Even if a leader is not strong in administration, he must recognize the absolute value it plays in the success of a nation—or a church. If you delegate it, you have to appreciate it, develop it, and then leave it alone. Oversupervision is the great sin of leaders against managers. The leader’s task is to say, “Here’s where we are, and there’s where we ought to go.” The administration’s task is to determine how to get there.
As A. T. Cushman, the CEO of Sears, put it, “The art of administration is constant checking.” He’s so right. It’s detail work. Managing takes a different set of skills than leading. You lead people, but you manage work.
Many pastors, of course, have to wear both hats. They are both leader and manager. In that case, they must recognize the distinct functions. Proclaiming vision from the pulpit is a separate skill from working effectively in a committee meeting. Proclamation is necessary for leadership, but it will probably be counterproductive in a committee meeting.
Choose a Style of Leadership
Since there are different ways to lead, it’s important to make a very clear selection. Unfortunately, great numbers of people try to be Mr. In-Between. They refuse to select any one chair and end up sitting on the floor. The eclectic approach doesn’t work.
Followers have an amazing ability to accommodate themselves to leadership styles. They want to “please the boss.” But if the style is constantly changing, they withdraw, become inactive.
They will make gradual adjustments so long as they don’t have to make major adjustments. If you will select your style, implement it, and stay consistent, you can almost use any style you want.
Here are some typical styles of leadership:
1. The benevolent dictator. I spoke recently to a group of young pastors who were very interested in seeing their churches grow. When I described the traits of a benevolent dictator, they immediately said, “That’s who we are. We know where we’re going. We know what we want people to do to help us get there. Yes, we want to be pleasant about it, but we think the way we’re headed is right, and we really are not interested in other people’s ideas for this church.” They were interested in results, a great many of which could be expressed numerically (size of church, size of budget, growth rate).
I have occasionally run into preachers who were tyrannical dictators, but these weed themselves out pretty quickly. They develop what has to be called a cult. Even though it may be theologically sound, it is still a personal cult.
Tyrannical dictators rarely last in any organization. Their very meanness undermines them. By operating from a motivation of fear, they sow the seeds of rebellion, which erupt only when the people sense weakness. That, of course, is the very time the leader can’t afford to have a rebellion. That’s why tyrants don’t last.
But the benevolent dictator is a common leadership form among pastors.
2. The one-man operator. Actually, this is more often a one-couple operation that runs the church like a mom-and-pop grocery store. Mom plays the organ, heads the missionary society, and makes calls with Dad, who does the preaching, the greeting, the supervising, and even the grass cutting. If they have children, the kids work in the choir or the Sunday school, and it’s a family business.
A great many churches are like this. Many of them are small, of course, but some of them grow to be sizable, depending on the energy and talent of the pastor. As the church grows beyond what one man or family can do, it starts to wilt. Somebody else’s Sunday school class starts to grow, and that’s threatening to the pastor, so along comes a new policy that no class will have more than ten students.…
If this kind of church is located in a growing suburb, it may expand simply because of its environment, in which case the one-man operator may have to move on because he just can’t keep his arms around it all.
3. The team player. Think about a football quarterback. He listens to everybody. He has a coach, but he knows his responsibility to call the play in a given number of seconds.
I saw an interview with Jim Zorn when he was still with the Seattle Seahawks, a couple of years after he had lost his number-one quarterback position to Dave Krieg. He said, “Football is a team sport, and if Dave Krieg can get more wins for this team than I can, then he should be the quarterback, and I will back him up. I will support him. I will watch every play and try to see things he can’t see. I’ll talk to him. We’ll be friends. And I will support the coaches’ decision to make him the quarterback.”
The interviewer noted that this kind of attitude resulted from Jim Zorn’s vibrant Christian faith. It was a great testimony.
In the church, I think the team philosophy ought to be common practice. If somebody else can do a job better than I can, I want him to do it. A true spiritual quarterback plays for the good of the team and isn’t just trying to be a star; he’s trying to win the objective for which the organization exists.
Now a dictator can’t become a quarterback/team player any more than he can fly. He may adopt the jargon, but his style will remain untouched. I have to say this: I’ve seen limited success in people trying to change their style. For some reason adults develop reflexes, reasoning powers, and success patterns that seem to lock them in.
I tend to be a team player, and when I was forty years old, I was asked to be president of a national corporation. I met with the board and did some background study. They had had a dictator for the previous forty years. I turned the offer down, because I’m too lazy to be a dictator. If I had gone in there and called those executives together and said, “Make your own decision,” they’d have looked at me and said, “Who? Us? We haven’t made a decision in years.” I would have hurt the organization. It would have taken me too long to change systems. What they needed was a young dictator whom people could respond to in a habitual sort of way.
Quarterbacks can’t make decisions as quickly as dictators. A dictator is a broken-field runner, a punt returner. A team player is more of a Franco Harris, who keeps hitting the line consistently and making first downs. The two are different skills.
In a church, you can tell a quarterback by whether people feel their suggestions will be acted on. With a dictator, people do not feel individual responsibility. They may feel responsible to him, to give him information or even make suggestions, but they feel no personal responsibility for the organization. In a team operation, people feel responsible for the decisions.
4. Leading by compromise. I realize the word compromise has a very bad name. But life is not all black and white.
It is possible to lead by compromise. Lyndon Johnson was a master at it. He had a real sense in Congress of what was doable with the people he had, and he’d get people to bend. Many times this is wiser than stopping the total program for an all-out debate.
Now as president, I didn’t think LBJ was as effective as he was in Congress, because his skills as a compromiser were not as suited. He was no longer among equals. He needed to lead more strongly.
A compromiser has a clever way of getting everybody to give something. I’ve seen a lot of people, both in industry and ministry, who are basically achievers of compromise. They don’t go very fast. They don’t generally go very far. But they go pleasantly. Rarely will you see an achiever of compromise split an organization. He’ll find some way to bring the sides together.
5. The consensus taker. You can spot this person immediately, because he’s always sending up balloons, raising a flag to see who salutes. If the balloon doesn’t get shot down, this establishes his path for the future.
I don’t want to gainsay the consensus-taker style. The Quakers, for example, use it effectively, but they have a clerk who states the sense of the meeting. Through this individual they accomplish leadership by consensus.
Ray Stedman, of course, has had an amazing system at Peninsula Bible Church in California of not doing anything until it’s unanimous. He believes that is the scriptural way. On the other hand, I have known two churches just recently that ran into real trouble trying to institute that system. Ray’s advantage in Palo Alto was that he got to set the pattern from the beginning of the church.
In such an atmosphere, a subconscious kind of politics evolves over a number of years through which people edge along smoothly toward consensus. If you tried to institute this in a big Baptist church in my part of the country, it would be chaos. Everything would come to a screaming stop.
Whatever your leadership style, it is important to know who you are when you start employing people. If you’re a dictator and hire some strong eager beavers, you’re going to keep them only a short time—or else face a revolution in the organization. You want to hire people with hinges in their backs, and keep them oiled.
Similar forethought is important for the one-man operator, the team player, the achiever of compromise, and the consensus taker as well.
These, then, are some of the functions of leadership. The rest of this book deals with the areas where leadership and administration overlap—directing yourself, guiding your coworkers, and leading the congregation.
Copyright © 1986 by Christianity Today
