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 those individuals. 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 sub-ministries. 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 particularly to oversee our department leaders.
How do we determine our unique contribution? We do this by considering our gifts, passions, talents, background, personality, and temperament. Given these insights, we can then decide how we can best fulfill the requirements of our particular role.
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 this 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. These 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, or to fail to increase their responsibility at the proper time is an insult. Competent people generally 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, once the person’s competence had been proven, I’d likely make him or her a lead teacher with 25 to 50 students.
It’s necessary, of course, to keep in communication with my workers. I shouldn’t dump a challenge on them and disappear. If I fail to check in with my colleagues on their progress, I’m not challenging them; I’m losing them.
Managers must 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 stretch them a step beyond their comfort level. High-potential leaders would rather be roused by a challenge than be 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.
Don Cousins; Growing Your Church Through Training and Motivation; Working Through Leaders; pp. 36-39.