The seeming drawback of too little time to train others is actually more of a mental block than a true drawback.
—Don Cousins
Growth inevitably leads to chaos.
I don’t mean the kind of chaos caused by weak administration or poor planning. I mean the turmoil that accompanies action, the disruption that results from change, and the problems that surface from incorporating new workers into a ministry. An organization without this kind of chaos probably isn’t making much of a mark. I’ll take chaos—with impact—any time over a calm lack of fruitfulness.
While chaos may not be a comfortable state, the inconveniences it brings are a small price to pay for the thrill of knowing one’s ministry is making a difference. And when great things are happening in a ministry, people tend to step forward and ask, “How can I help?” They want to be part of the activity—even somewhat chaotic activity—when they see the fruit it bears.
The man who runs our small-group ministry owned a real estate company before he joined our staff. A year or so before he came on staff, he said to me, “I can tell my passion is changing. I used to want to pour all my time into the marketplace. Now I’ve tasted what it is to be used by God, and I want to invest myself more fully in things that really matter.”
People like this, who arise from congregations as volunteers or paid staff, can lighten the load that active ministry creates. They can be channels through which we accomplish the work of the ministry. The only catch is that they have to be properly managed.
Overcoming the Drawbacks
The pastor overloaded with demands may cringe at the prospect of recruiting and supervising other workers. If he has insufficient time to do immediate tasks, how will he ever find time to enlist others in ministry?
Unfortunately, some leaders believe their primary responsibility is to keep the ministry running smoothly, to check chaos at any cost. So they devote the bulk of their time to the immediate tasks that keep their ministry under control. They maintain the ministry. They put out fires. But they never take the steps that would move their ministry forward.
This maintenance mindset has to be reversed. Short-term focus must make way for long-term perspective. We need to ask, “What decisions or activities will help me to be more effective a year from now than I am today?” The answer to that question will determine what we should do first.
Once again, it’s a question of A and B priorities. B priorities maintain the ministry, and chances are they scream the loudest for our attention. But A priorities move our ministries forward. So we need to spend the best hours of our day on A priorities, even if that means setting aside a beckoning pile of B priorities.
After fifteen years in ministry, I have concluded that recruiting and training leaders should always be near the top of a manager’s A priorities. If we want our ministries to grow, we must nurture people who can take over a portion of our work and expand it. The time required to do this often seems like a drawback, but it gives us back the time in the end.
Take hospital visitation, for example. On any given day, it would be easier for a pastor to make a hospital visit alone than to recruit volunteers, take them with him, and teach them to make hospital calls. If he went by himself, he could gain time—that day. But the following year he’d still be in the same position: personally making all the hospital calls. And each call would take him away from other necessary activities.
But let’s say that early in the year he invested A-priority time in recruiting and training people gifted and called by God to be hospital callers—people with potential to do it more effectively than he. By year’s end, they could cover the ministry of hospital visitation and free him to pursue other A priorities. His initial investment of time would quickly save him hours each week and also enable others to use their gifts in meaningful ministry.
Many church leaders bear incredible loads because they haven’t mastered the art of raising up fellow leaders and releasing responsibility to them. So they work sixty to seventy hours a week (or more) and produce less fruit than a leader who works reasonable hours but has learned to tap the potential of others.
At Willow Creek, we want our staff to be around for the long haul. We also want them and their families to enjoy life and one another; we don’t want to provoke spouses to anger or cause children to grow up resenting the church for taking Mom or Dad away. So we encourage staff to limit their ministry responsibilities to an average of fifty hours a week, and that includes their participation in church services and small groups.
We also know a staff member won’t draw others into the kingdom or into leadership unless he exhibits joy, and joy springs from a refreshed life. Who would want to take on the mantle of ministry responsibility if it looks like one big pain?
What keeps ministry from becoming an overwhelming burden? A healthy, shared leadership role. I asked one of our singles ministry directors who came to us from a plush position in business, “Do you ever miss the marketplace? You had more freedom and less pressure, and you certainly made more money.”
“No way!” he replied. “I wouldn’t go back for a minute. Sure, the ministry is demanding. But I have a great team of workers who help meet the demands. With the fruit my family and I are harvesting and the sense of God’s pleasure in what we’re doing, there’s no way I’d go back now.”
Would he feel the same if he hadn’t shared his ministry with others? Not on your life. The hours would be killing him, and he’d want out. Fortunately, he took the time early in his ministry to train helpers, and now he’s reaping the reward of a manageable ministry. As he learned, the seeming drawback of too little time to train others is actually more of a mental block than a true drawback.
Of course, not all drawbacks are mental blocks. For example, sometimes I make mistakes in choosing people to become leaders. I invest myself in people who don’t pan out or never reach the levels I expected. That’s frustrating, but a reality.
Every leader must be willing to make mistakes, because we all will. One year I had to let go three staff members who were close friends of mine. All three were men of character who loved the Lord and fit our staff relationally, but their ministries had passed them by. They had ministered effectively to 150 people, but they couldn’t handle 200 or 250. Their ministries were suffering, and they were under tremendous pressure.
Decisions like that are tough to make and even harder to carry out. But if we seek and obey God’s direction, we can trust him to bring about a resolution in time. For a while my relationships with these former staff members were strained because my decisions had complicated their lives. Today, however, they all are pleased with their career or ministry opportunities, and together we can thank God for his wise guidance.
Most leaders begin ministry fully intending to work through others to demonstrate the priesthood of all believers. But some have drifted away from that principle after getting burned. They selected a wrong person, and the choice came back to haunt them. If that happens three or four times early in one’s ministry, the natural tendency is to decide never again to touch the hot stove.
That’s unfortunate, because occasional failures don’t mean the principle is defective; the practice merely needs refining. When fear arises, it’s time to look back and determine where the breakdown occurred: Did my selection process fall short? Did I fail to train people properly?
It helps to remember that Jesus was deserted by all twelve of his disciples in his hour of greatest need. If Jesus experienced that kind of fallout, who am I to think I can avoid it totally? I shouldn’t quit pursuing sound practices just because of occasionally poor performance.
Other drawbacks of working through others center on the personality of the leader. Personal insecurity may make one think, If I raise up others to do part of my work, will I lose my uniqueness, my status? And what if they use their new abilities to undercut me? Those with an unhealthy need to be in control will hesitate to let others into the circle of responsibility.
Good leaders, on the other hand, keep their eyes on the big picture and say, “Building the kingdom of God and seeing this person develop his or her potential—even if it’s greater than mine—is more important than protecting my territory.”
In reality, accomplishing the work of the ministry through others usually makes the leader look better than ever. More work gets done. More ministry takes place. And the leader becomes respected as a recruiter, trainer, and delegator.
I use a circle to represent what a person can accomplish, given his or her capacities, gifts, energy, and availability. Obviously, any one person’s circle is limited; it cannot expand without the addition of another person’s resources. Thus, the scope of a ministry remains limited when only one person works in it.
We try to teach our staff to invest their lives in people who have the potential to do one of two things: expand the staff member’s circle of ministry, or replace him or her in the circle. After two or three years of training, the one being trained ought to contribute enough to free the staff member to expand the ministry or to hand it over and move on to a new endeavor.
That has been my experience at Willow Creek. I started the high school ministry, founded our singles ministry, and then developed our small-group ministry. At each juncture, I stepped out of one responsibility and into another, primarily because someone was ready to assume my place. By grooming others to take over my responsibilities, I’ve freed myself to broaden the scope of our church’s ministry. Had I not done so, my contribution never would have expanded beyond my initial circle of ministry in the high school department.
A leader, by implication, is a person who draws others into effective ministry. The key to doing this is to select potential associates with care.
What to Look for in Leaders
In seeking leaders, the temptation is to look first for an individual with tremendous gifts and abilities. At Willow Creek we’ve learned, however, that this is not the place to start.
Character
The number-one leadership criterion is strength of character. This cannot be compromised. Spiritual intensity or raw ability may appear more important, but we’ve learned the hard way that they are not.
By his mid-twenties, a person’s character is relatively set. If someone is hard-working, honest, conscientious, and loyal in his twenties, he’ll probably still be that way in his forties or six-ties. Likewise, if there’s a major flaw, it probably won’t change without extensive work more akin to reparenting than discipleship.
A twenty-five-year-old who doesn’t tell the truth likely has worked on the art of deception since childhood; it’s doubtful he’ll change after one conversation about dishonesty. The same holds true with a lack of personal organization or discipline. To change that requires a major reweaving of the fabric of the person’s character.
No matter how gifted, trained, or spiritually mature a person is, the true usefulness of those attributes will be determined by character.
How does one assess character? The two indicators I watch are how people manage their personal life and how they relate to others.
A prerequisite to leading others is the ability to lead one’s own life effectively. That’s what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 9:27: “I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” A leader’s first responsibility is to have his or her life in order.
Weak character will manifest itself in a lack of self-management: poor self-discipline, tardiness with appointments, incomplete work, being controlled by outside circumstances, or even moral lapses.
Years ago we hired a staff member whose gifts and spiritual intensity appeared unquestionable. We learned after hiring him, however, that he tended to twist the truth. On numerous occasions staff members discovered he had told them conflicting stories. He eventually began pitting one staff person against another, and relationships began to break down.
He also exaggerated. We’d ask, “How many were at that meeting last night?”
“Oh, hundreds,” he’d say.
When we knew differently, we’d confront him: “Was it really hundreds?”
“Well, maybe 150.” Even after several conversations like this, he continued to exaggerate, and we realized his repeated exaggerations were another form of deception. We all make mistakes, but a continuing pattern such as his indicates a character flaw. Because he failed to recognize it and do something about it, we had to let him go.
Often manifestations of character weakness aren’t readily apparent. That’s why it’s so important to observe prospective leaders over time.
The second indicator of character is interpersonal skills. Some people can relate only in a hierarchy: up and down a chain of authority. They can work for people and/or over people, but they can’t work with people. If the essence of leadership is to get close enough to people to equip them for ministry, a key ingredient for success is the ability to work with people.
Interpersonal skills involve humility, courtesy, patience, self-control. Someone who exhibits these qualities likely has a healthy character and is eligible for leadership responsibility. Conversely, if a person can’t relate warmly to others, I question his or her readiness to lead. I don’t have time to build basic interpersonal skills into those I’m training for leadership.
Self-esteem, while not strictly a matter of character, comes sharply into play at this point. To a degree, all of us have a fragile self-esteem; all of us, because of sin, remain somewhat insecure. While that kind of universal insecurity need not hinder ministry, more pronounced insecurity definitely has a destructive effect. As I mentioned earlier, an insecure person is unable to rally strong people for fear one of them may be stronger than himself and thus a threat.
When we interview potential staff and key layleaders, we try to determine how they perceive themselves. Can they say, “Yes, I’m a sinner. I’m thoroughly aware that apart from the grace of God I am nothing, but with the grace of God and the gifts he’s given me, I have something to offer”? The healthier the selfesteem, the better the foundation upon which to build ministry. If we compromise here, we’ll pay in the end.
Spiritual authenticity
The second criterion for potential leaders is spiritual authenticity. Have they made a mature, consistent commitment to Christ? Does the Word of God impact their daily lives? Do they pray? Are they in submission to the Holy Spirit?
I ask specific questions to detect this quality: “What have you studied in your quiet times this week? Can you share some recent answers to prayer? What are the temptations you struggle with most? How did you come to know Christ? Have you been discipled? Have you discipled someone else?” These questions get at the heart of a person’s walk with God more than a general “How’s your spiritual life?”
Why is it necessary to discuss such basic spiritual issues? Because people who carry the weight of leadership need to practice the fundamentals. A football player who says “I don’t need to practice all week. I can go out on Sunday and play the game” is headed for trouble. Eventually his lack of preparation will catch up with him. It’s the same with Christian leaders. To effectively promote spirituality one must practice spirituality.
Ministry fit
Often people speak of ministry fit strictly in terms of gifts and abilities, but these aspects are only part of the match. Equally important is passion. People can be perfectly gifted for a particular ministry, but if they don’t have a corresponding passion for it, they’ll lose motivation and eventually quit.
We look for potential leaders who say, “God has given me a burden to work with high school students. I’ve just got to figure out a way to do it.” Sometimes that passion isn’t evident initially, and we have to draw it out. But even then we need to see a natural spark.
Spiritual passion is an unquenchable desire to do something for God. It may not manifest itself in intense emotion, but it always manifests itself in action. The passion may be as dramatic as William Booth’s desire to minister to the poor, or as unassuming as a treasurer’s desire to protect a church’s financial integrity. In either case, God has so created and motivated a person that he or she says, “I feel strongly about this, and I have what it takes to meet the need. Let me at it!”
At Willow Creek, we have people who get emotionally charged about doing building maintenance. They want to present the unchurched with a clean, inviting building on Sunday morning. They also believe the condition of our building should reflect our commitment to an excellent, perfect God. So they’re excited about what they do. That’s ministry fit.
Relational fit
Leaders who want a well-functioning team also need to choose members who fit relationally. Christian leaders sometimes skip this point because it smacks of favoritism. Aren’t we supposed to love everybody? Aren’t we called to be tolerant? How, then, can we say a potential colleague might not fit relationally? For the furtherance of the kingdom, shouldn’t the leader be willing to swallow his own preferences?
Yes and no. Does a leader need to be flexible? Yes. Should the leader bend to the point of selecting colleagues he or she doesn’t enjoy being with? I don’t think so. Work usually suffers when there’s an uncomfortable team relationship.
Certainly we’re to love everybody, but that doesn’t mean we have to work closely with everybody. Why did I marry my wife instead of some other girl? One reason was that our chemistry was right. During the course of dating, I realized I liked her more than the others; we got along better; our lives meshed.
Why do I work better with some staff members? Because we happen to “click.” Even if we didn’t work together, we’d enjoy spending time together. Why not enhance my enthusiasm and productivity by bringing on people with whom I fit relationally?
Every work team has a unique personality. One aspect of Willow Creek’s staff personality, for example, is a willingness to flex for the sake of the ministry, to share ideas, and to learn from others. Therefore, if a superstar arrives saying, “I know what I’m doing. I can handle things—my way!” he or she is going to bump heads with other staff members here. But a worker who is teachable—whether a rookie with raw abilities or an experienced veteran with honed talents—will enjoy a natural relational fit.
Traits to Reconsider
While certain personality traits mark leadership candidates as obvious front-runners, other traits may surprise us. In particular, we need to look carefully at aggressiveness and initiative.
Some people equate leadership with personal aggressiveness, but in reality leaders come with a variety of styles and temperaments. Some may be quiet and lead primarily through their actions. For example, former Chicago Bears linebacker and captain Mike Singletary didn’t say a lot, but his character and discipline made him a respected leader both on and off the field.
Other effective leaders are naturally shy and avoid the spotlight at all costs. The men who head our sound and lighting ministry don’t enjoy getting up in front of people and aren’t particularly social, but that doesn’t hinder their ministry. They relate well to workers who also enjoy behind-the-scenes work. Their more introverted personalities are precisely what make them effective production leaders.
The key to yet other leaders’ effectiveness is their sincerity. They’re not aggressive; they don’t push hard. But their depth of feeling and passion grips the people they lead.
Pure aggressiveness, rather than suiting a person for leadership, should actually signal caution. Often, an extreme degree of aggressiveness indicates a character problem. The aggressiveness may flow from repressed anger or an inordinate desire to be successful. Such aggressiveness doesn’t fuel ministry; it blows it up.
What fuels ministry is initiative. An initiator takes action, but unlike the purely aggressive person, he does it for others’ sake rather than his own.
To distinguish between aggressiveness and initiative, I look at the fruit of the person’s efforts. If the fruit is self-promotion, then ambitious aggression is probably at play. But if people genuinely are being helped and the ministry is growing, then initiative is more likely the spark.
In our church, I’ve met many businessmen who’ve achieved success by being shrewd and aggressive and working harder than anyone else. On the surface, they would seem to be good leadership candidates. But unless cunning individuals are submitted to the Holy Spirit and accountable to other leaders, they’re like loose cannons on deck.
We place people like these under other strong leaders who can temper them. We’ve found that in time, the Holy Spirit can get hold of them and harness their self-will. The change usually appears first in how they treat their families or subordinates at work. Once the Holy Spirit directs their drive, they often show the makings of effective, godly leaders.
Leaders are judged, in part, by their selection of co-workers. Select the right people, and ministries thrive. Select the wrong people, and doors are opened to problems that stifle ministry and damage credibility.
What are the keys to wise selection? Time, prayer, and discernment. Jesus didn’t choose the Twelve by walking along the seashore saying, “I want you and you and you. Drop your nets and follow me.” In his first year of ministry, Jesus worked with a large number of disciples. When it was time to center in on potential leaders, he went away for a night of prayer, returned, and then selected the Twelve (Luke 6 and Mark 3).
If Jesus needed to wait a year and pray all night, shouldn’t we wait to see the fruit of potential leaders’ lives? Shouldn’t we pray diligently for discernment? We kid ourselves if we think we can select wisely without going through the same careful process Jesus employed.
How to Work Through Others
After placing the right people in the right spots, we have to make critical decisions about which tasks to do ourselves and which to accomplish through them. Naturally, there are certain tasks we never delegate. Peter Drucker refers to those as a leader’s “unique contribution,” what he alone brings to the organization. Leaders shouldn’t delegate what they are best positioned and gifted to accomplish.
A senior pastor, for instance, typically is gifted and trained as a teacher. Often his most significant contribution is teaching on Sunday mornings. So when he gets overloaded, he should focus on message preparation and delegate competing tasks to others.
My unique contribution at Willow Creek is to build our subministries. No one else is so commissioned to help our ministry directors develop their departments. Someone else can type my correspondence, lead singles meetings, or administrate our magazine, but no one else is called to oversee our department leaders.
How do we determine our unique contribution? By considering our gifts, passions, talents, background, personality, and temperament. Given that insight, we can then decide how we can best fulfill the requirements of our particular position.
I try to be a student of myself: Who did God make me to be? What has he called me to do? The best hours of my day should be given to make that contribution.
After I determine my slice of the circle, I need to look at the remaining tasks and ask, “Who can I find to help me complete the circle?” The key is to find people who feel about their slice the way I feel about mine.
For example, for a number of years I worked with our compensation committee. However, as the staff grew, the salary schedule became increasingly complicated. With no training in this area, I felt terribly inadequate. Yet technically, the responsibility fell in my circle.
At the time, a man in my small group was vice-president of personnel in a major corporation. His Ph.D. and vast corporate experience made salary negotiations a natural for him—and what’s more, he enjoyed it.
Today he heads our compensation committee. Because of his expertise, our salary structure is worked out in great detail and everyone benefits. The staff is better served, the man gets to use his talents to help the church, and I am freed to do the tasks I do best. That happened because I found a leader who feels as strongly about compensation schedules as I do about ministry development.
After determining which tasks to do ourselves and which to delegate, we must decide how much responsibility to give and when to give it. At Willow Creek, we operate on this principle: Faithful with little, faithful with much. We start by giving people a small task or responsibility, and as they prove faithful in that, we give them more.
Sometimes seminary students call and say, “I need an internship. Can I teach at Willow Creek?” We always turn down offers like that. We might offer students the opportunity to lead a small group in their home, and if that works out, expand their leadership role. But we won’t bestow great responsibility without a track record of faithfulness and effectiveness in our fellowship. “You start by speaking to five,” we tell them, “and then we’ll see about fifty.”
We expect potential teachers to display strong character, evidence a robust spiritual life, and build relational credibility. Then, if their teaching gift is affirmed, we find a place for them in ministry. The same expectations help us determine what initial administrative or service roles to offer other possible leaders.
While we shouldn’t give too much responsibility too soon, it’s important to challenge those through whom we work. In fact, it may be more damaging to expect too little of our workers than too much.
Typically, people are drawn into leadership because others have noticed their competence in a variety of ways. Usually they’re energetic, busy people who have proven they can do a job well. When people like this are bitten by the ministry bug, and when they taste the fulfillment of fruitfulness, they want to move ahead.
That’s why it’s so important to challenge them. To give them too meager a task, to expect too little, to fail to increase their responsibility at the proper time, is an insult. Competent people want to grow into positions of greater responsibility.
Naturally, I wouldn’t expect someone who has never worked in children’s ministry to assume a lead teacher role in Sunday school. I’d start such a person with a more manageable challenge, perhaps as a small-group leader. However, after a year or so, when the person’s competence has been proven, I’d likely make him or her a lead teacher with twenty-five to fifty students.
It’s necessary, of course, to talk with workers and monitor their progress. I can’t dump a challenge on them and disappear. If I let colleagues down in their responsibilities, I’m not challenging them; I’m losing them.
Managers need to walk a fine line. They need to move people along at a reasonable rate so they don’t feel overwhelmed. But they also need to remember that competent people usually feel most effective when they’re stretched, when their responsibilities pull them a step beyond their comfort level. High-potential leaders would rather be roused by challenge than indulged by comfort.
It’s that realization that keeps me on my knees. I need divine discernment to know how to challenge workers without overwhelming them.
I tend to be an optimist who sees the best in people and expects the best from them. I want to tell leaders, “You can do it. I know you can.” But I can’t say that to just anyone. So I don’t glean leaders from whatever grows in the field. I prayerfully choose people who display character, spiritual maturity, and competence. Most often, people like that rise to the challenges of ministry.
The Payoff
Recently, circumstances forced me to act as interim director of one of our subcommittees. Because I already had a full slate of responsibilities, and because the subministry desperately needed a change, I had to find a strategy that would assure a quick turnaround. So I asked myself: What is going to change this ministry most dramatically in the shortest time? The answer was clear: key leaders. So I devoted my time and energy to finding potential key leaders.
Focusing on this A priority meant living with other problems, such as inadequate facilities and outdated curriculum. But I couldn’t afford to tackle these problems at the cost of my primary task: finding key leaders.
For a while the ministry felt like a huge weight around my neck. Some days I went to the office at 4:00 a.m. because I couldn’t sleep. I was exhausted, I wasn’t giving my family what they needed, and the ministry was still in desperate need of change. At best, I was only propping it up.
The final turnaround came when we found the right person to head a major part of the department. The woman we called revolutionized the program. Her volunteers are now enthusiastic, and new people constantly are being attracted to the ministry. The entire program is functioning more smoothly, and details like facilities and curriculum can now be attended to.
Thanks to the contributions of the right leader, a major subministry has undergone a dramatic metamorphosis—and I have become a saner pastor and family man. Now I spend only one afternoon a week on that ministry, coordinating the efforts of the three new primary leaders. I have that luxury because I diligently pursued my A priority of finding leaders through whom I could work. I view that as a major accomplishment of my year.
Had I simply continued as a crutch for the ministry, both the ministry and I would still be limping along. But because I made it a priority to raise up leaders, we now have a healthy department.
When we build ministry that way, everybody wins.
Copyright © 1997
