Tag Archives: stakeholders

Solomon: From Riches to Rags

Posted on by
1

It all started so well. A good looking and humble guy.

The first book of Kings describes King Solomon as a godly man. He “loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father.”

And if that wasn’t clear enough, when asked by the Lord what his desire was, his response was to ask for wisdom to rule Israel. He humbly admitted that he was “but a little child.” He confessed that he was not adequate on his own to govern God’s people.

What a start.

Dependence

Leadership in God’s kingdom must fundamentally be about dependence on the Lord to gift and guide. Those who lead must be built to lead and then they must be directed. That building of leadership qualities and guidance are from Jesus Christ.

Though a leader may not be born, all that he has has been given by the Lord. His abilities. His material wealth. His opportunities. So, whether a leader becomes a leader after the hard work of study and practice or was a leader since birth, it all comes from the Lord.

It was said of Solomon:

And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind.

1 Kings 10:24 (ESV)

God had put into his mind all the wisdom he had. It all came from the Lord.

Therefore, the acknowledging of God’s gifting and help are essential to a good leader. Because God expects him to acknowledge God’s gifts to him.

…giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ…

Ephesians 5:20 (ESV)

And, it is by God’s guidance that the leader leads. God has given scripture (special revelation) and a world of wisdom (general revelation).

The good leader is dependent on the Lord for His guidance by His Holy Spirit enlightening the Words of scripture. He studies to know God’s Word as the kings of old were commanded:

“And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.”

Deuteronomy 17:18-20 (ESV)

God’s leaders need to be immersed in God’s Word. That is a tall order and an order that Solomon seemed to understand.

And God’s leaders must also be wise to God’s “general” revelation. God has set in course rules of nature that may be studied and applied to act wisely in this life. That which is not clearly contained in His Word may yet be His means of directing a leader in wisdom.

Being a good engineer is founded upon studying God’s established physical universe. Working with the minds of men depends on understanding both the spiritual and physical complexities of his brain. So, the good leader studies God’s world to know with wisdom how to respond to the needs of his stake-holders.

Solomon astounded the people by his wisdom, in one case shocking his attendants by suggesting a baby be cut in half to determine who the correct mother was. He did not know how to do that by God’s law but by the Holy Spirit enlightening him to the events playing out before him.

All Good Things…

But the typical happened. And, it is a lesson for leaders everywhere.

Scripture says Solomon was wiser than anyone around. He was an exceptional leader and blessings of a material nature clearly followed him. Everything he touched, it seems, turned to gold.

And yet, he did what so many leaders do after starting well.

After building a beautiful temple for the worship of the Lord, at God’s direction, Solomon was turned. In his arrogance and power he married any woman he wished and used his subjects for his own ends.

The law expressly forbid marrying women not of Israel. Not out of spite or arrogance but because, as scripture explains, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” [1 Kings 11:2b]

And, he had a boatload of them. 700 wives and 300 concubines. Good grief.

Solomon also made a house…for Pharaoh’s daughter whom he had taken in marriage.
All these were made of costly stones…

And, scripture says they turned him away to other gods. After building a magnificent sanctuary for the worship of the one true God, he built places of worship [high places] for several other gods. Abomidable gods it says.

Art Thou the Man?

Are you going to be turned?

After being given opportunity to lead and being overwhelmed by the responsibility, were you humbled? Did you see it as a gift from the Lord to be given that great privilege of leading? Did you fall on your face before the Lord asking Him for wisdom to lead?

Great start.

Now, consider how far you can fall.

God was gracious to Solomon in leaving him in charge until he died (with rough spots along the way). But the Lord explained that Solomon’s legacy would be in rags. After such a great start, the Lord is said to be angry with Solomon.

Solomon’s legacy was the split of God’s people (Israel and Judah). They followed separate leaders and Israel especially followed Solomon’s example. The northern tribes (Israel) chose their own place of worship and ended up falling to conquerors (sooner than Judah).

It was a disappointing end for a thrilling start.

To Africa on a Lark by the Editor of Pearls and Swine Site

Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.

[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.

J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English

What others say about the book:

The Autocrat: The Destruction of a Good Team

Posted on by
Reply

“Self-serving leaders use the trust and authority that accrues to them to help themselves.”[1]

“Autocratic” leaders, as Herrington calls highly authoritarian bosses, rather than seeking the good of the sheep, of whom they are given charge, are self-focused. Their posture is one of self-serving in their decision-making and workplace relationships.

Why, Why, Why

Commonly, autocratic leaders seek to control those in their employ by fear.

Amy Edmondson, a business management expert and author, suggests that many leaders believe that the use of “fear increases control.” And, in their view, control increases productivity. But Edmondson says those who use fear use it unwisely to gain “certainty and predictability”. [2]

The goal for any leader should be to build a group of God-gifted individuals into a team that finds the best solutions for the services they provide in the redemption of God’s world.

But according to her study, the autocratic leaders’ desire for better performance from those under their authority is actually unsatisfied as they create psychologically unsafe environments for interaction and learning.[3]

If a leader wants to build a team, take advantage of his employees’ giftedness, and seek their buy-in, he will be sorely disappointed if he rules in fear. Where team members experience psychological safety – a state of knowing they can share ideas openly without negative repercussions – there is growth and production.

The autocratic leader may believe it takes “forceful advocacy to bring others along,” rather than welcoming the ideas and abilities of those under him. But it has the opposite effect.[4]

The authoritative boss leads by forcing subordinates to do what he deems best to do either through manipulation or fear. Because of the leader’s position of authority employees fear reprimand for any misstep when responding to these destructive managers.

Therefore, they will keep their good ideas to themselves and seek to stay under the abusive leader’s radar. The boss has lost the opportunity to build a better product or service.

Autocratic Dependency

Herrington, Creech, and Taylor describe a highly authoritative leader named “Steve” who felt that, like Moses, he was “responsible to get a vision for his church from God and deliver that vision to the people. In his view, the church members were responsible for accepting it and making it happen.”[5]

Steve’s authoritarian leadership created much dissention and in the end, he lost his position as senior pastor.

Herrington argues, “Emotional dependence on others drives the autocratic leader. Others are there to serve the leader’s purpose.”[6] Many would assume that this kind of leader was quite independent (seeming to have little concern for those under his authority), but according to Herrington, the autocratic leader is driven by controlling those under his authority to selfish ends and is therefore dependent on them to meet his “needs.”

Blame Displacement

In addition, autocratic leaders, being self-focused, often either fail to consider or are fearful of admitting their own failures and practice “blame displacement.”

One abusive leader, under whom I served, when challenged for his failure to protect those under his care immediately blamed a manager for what he was ultimately responsible.

Herrington defines this as, “the human tendency to look outward for explanations rather than inward.”[7] Blame is often placed on those under authority and this adds to an unsafe environment and broken relationships.

Patrick Lencioni argues that,

“Team members who are not genuinely open with one another about their mistakes and weaknesses make it impossible to build a foundation for trust.”[8]

For the interaction of pastor, assistant pastor, and congregation to be truly edifying, a mutual empathy for weakness and failure must be nurtured through the “confession of sins” to one another.[9] Edmondson suggests that when blame is placed on others when things do not go right, “productive discussion of the issues is less likely to occur” and “we begin to think less of others, and then may be less motivated to engage wholeheartedly in teaming with them.”[10]

Humility should be the motto of every leader. He should think about it when he rises in the morning, when he goes to work, when the sun goes down. Though he is called to lead with vision and decisiveness, the leader needs to be continually on his guard to retain the self-awareness that he too is a sinful individual and may be wrong at points.

In admitting those wrongs he will both learn and build a team that can come alongside to provide excellent service to others.

A Functioning Body

A lack of team perspective fails to give rightful attention to the uniqueness with which God has created each person. The Apostle Paul, speaking to a church torn apart by various moral deficiencies draws a picture of the congregation from the perspective of the functioning of the human body. He says,

“For the body does not consist of one member but of many.”[11]

Paul argues that every person’s giftedness is necessary for the correct functioning of the church just as it is for the human body. An autocratic leader fails to encourage this kind of necessary cooperative effort because he thinks he may lose control.

The fear of losing control drives an autocratic pastor to place blame outside his own attitudes and actions. In response, those who serve under his leadership and authority are likely to reserve the use of their gifts due to lacking psychological safety.

The environment created by this brokenness is less than conducive for the “building up the body of Christ” as described by the Apostle Paul.[12]

NOTES:

[1] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, 52–53.

[2] Edmondson, Teaming, 508–509.

[3] Ibid., 1163–1164.

[4] Ibid., 4810–4811.

[5] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, 541–542.

[6] Ibid., 589.

[7] Ibid., 804–805.

[8] Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, 188.

[9] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. James 5:16.

[10] Edmondson, Teaming, 1277–1280.

[11] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. 1 Corinthians 12:12–31.

[12] Ibid., v. Ephesians 4:12.

Margo’s Story: Playing Second Fiddle to a Wolf

Posted on by
1

Timothy Witmer said, “The exercise of authority is designed to serve the well-being of those under its care.”[1] It is unfortunate when those in authority fail to consider that little detail.

The pastor of the local church has been given the authority and responsibility to care for his congregation made up of people often referred to as “sheep” in scripture.[2] The analogy of sheep is apt, as they are particularly vulnerable to predators and have an extraordinary propensity for self-harm.

A sheep rancher in Wyoming responded to a school child who asked if sheep sleep at night, saying, “No, they lay awake thinking up new ways to die!”

On the other hand, the picture painted of the pastor in scripture is that of a “shepherd” who protects the sheep. As a shepherd of these sheep, the pastor is charged with being “motivated by love for the Lord,” says Richard Rardin, author of The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles.[3]

Rardin adds that the “servant of God must die to self before he or she can be of much use to the Father.”[4]

This means the pastor is at heart willing to set aside his own comforts for the care of the congregation, putting the interests of the congregation above his own.

Scripture instructs the sheep to consider the shepherds “worthy of double honor.”[5] Witmer argues that God has called congregant members to live in submission to church authorities, specifically those called as “teaching” pastors. He goes on to say that the arrangement of a leader who dies to self and a congregation giving a “willing response of obedience” is an “advantage to all” involved.[6]

That is in the perfect world.

But church members are very vulnerable to those leaders who would take advantage of their weakness as those under authority. The prophet Ezekiel warned the leaders in Israel in the seventh century B.C.,

“You have not taken care of the weak. You have not tended the sick or bound up the injured. You have not gone looking for those who have wandered away and are lost. Instead, you have ruled them with harshness and cruelty. So my sheep have been scattered without a shepherd, and they are easy prey for any wild animal.”[7]

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

The people of God are “easy prey” for wolves in sheep’s clothing, as Jesus refers to false prophets. They may look like sheep, meek and mild, but behind the façade of harmless sheep they are “ravenous wolves”.[8] As the sheep, the nation of Israel, was scattered by the “harshness and cruelty” of the leaders, so church members are at times scattered by autocratic pastors and elders in local congregations.

To add to the complexities of such circumstances there may exist “mid-level management” in the form of pastor’s assistants who must navigate between submission to a senior pastor’s authority (giving honor to those who teach) and shepherding the congregation (having been called to a pastoral care position).

The assistant who seeks to lead from the “second chair,” [drawing on the terminology of the position of those in an orchestra who perform under the “first chair” player] must walk a fine line between having authority and being under authority.

This becomes treacherous when the senior pastor is acting like a wolf rather than shepherd. I have been fortunate to serve under a humble and empowering pastor, something not all assistants enjoy.

Margo’s Story

“Margo” served as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with 400 members and has a Masters of Divinity. She served in a pastoral role under the supervision of the Senior Pastor of the congregation who, by her description, was the primary authority in the church.

Margo was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship through videos, music, and PowerPoint. Her background in business management provided organizational skills that were invaluable for these administrative tasks. In addition, her love for mentoring was utilized as she discipled individuals and lead teams in spiritual development.

Margo resigned from her position in large part due to the autocratic leadership of Pastor Pete.

The Mission Trip

Margo told me of a time that she was approached by Pastor “Pete” to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to a southern African nation. Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a group of African churches through short-term trips.

Pastor Pete gave Margo much authority to build a team and communicate with the African churches and a missions organization in Colorado, through which they would operate.

As they prepared to sign up members of the congregation for the summer mission, one member reneged on his verbal commitment. He had particular gifts of importance to the team. He explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany him on a mission trip to Eastern Africa, a trip neither Margo, nor her committee, had heard about.

When she and a fellow leader (an elder in the church) were told this, the elder was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete. In the meeting, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had gotten his “feelings hurt.”

After the elder challenged the pastor for his lack of consideration, the pastor continued to laugh at him.

Making Matters Worse

Following the trip the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation and the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the southern African churches in which they ministered.

However, at the close of the service, Pastor Pete gave an announcement that all the funds and materials would be sent to the churches he had visited two weeks earlier. It was a complete surprise to the missions committee and team that had been directed to raise the funds and materials for the southern African churches by Pastor Pete.

The Real Power

Margo’s church had an elder board that had the authority to hire or fire the senior pastor. However, the perceived or real power of the pastor overcame that authority and the board adopted a “herding mentality” – “an appeasement strategy toward” the pastor that allowed an environment of pastoral control and poor decision-making.[9]

The practice of leadership by a pastor who considers his vision of primary importance to the congregation creates an environment where there is no psychological safety for the purpose of building a team ministry.

Because strong, authoritative leaders can be perceived as God’s “anointed,” gathering around them disciples attracted to their power, it becomes difficult for a leadership team to reject the autocrat.

Autocratic pastors may provide skills and gifts in many areas, but the overwhelming effect of their leadership is destructive to important relationships and the witness of the body of Christ.

Coping

As Margo pressed on towards her goal of ministering to the congregation, her convictions regarding the Matthew 18 principles presented both difficulty in confronting the problem pastor and in coping with her emotional responses to the senior pastor’s leadership.

She was concerned that sharing her struggles with others in the congregation would be gossiping and missing the point of Matthew 18 where much of the focus is on one-on-one confrontation and reconciliation.

So, Margo focused on sharing her difficulties with family members outside the church. This common strategy in “workplace bullying” environments is helpful for those who are bullied to receive encouragement and, possibly, biblical advice from those removed from the situation.[10]

However, the real problem – the pastor – is left unchecked. The assistant is left alone and isolated because those who truly understand and know what the assistant is facing, the church members, are not consulted and the processing of the assistant’s emotions is limited.

The Matthew 18 principles, taught by Jesus in verses 15 through 18, are given in the context of brothers in the faith with the oversight of a plurality of elders. In Margo’s context, the “brother” had authority to fire her and was under no real authority of elders. And Margo was convinced she had nowhere to turn in her church family to express and process her emotions for fear that it would be gossip.

Two to Tango

Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango.” Like in the experience of many who have faced domestic violence, a well-meaning brother may suggest that since both individuals involved are sinful, they are both responsible for the broken relationship. This perspective is evident in the writings of Friedman, Herrington, Creech and Taylor.

This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25. Friedman focuses on changing self, however there are times when it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person.

Having said that, the emotional response of those caught in less than optimal ministry environments must be understood and moderated by principles of self-differentiation. It was clear in my interview with Margo that Pastor Pete could not be expected to change nor be confronted with any expectation of success.

Responding to the Situation

Therefore, how an assistant copes with the daily interactions with this type of pastor is of the greatest importance, particularly if the assistant feels trapped in the job with little recourse financially or vocationally.

Margo took submissive postures with her supervising pastor, limiting her criticism and always recognizing that his word was the “final word.”

It also provided helpful lessons to Margo to work under Pastor Peter.

She was forced to hold firmly to her own convictions, minister to others as God gave opportunity, and recognize that ultimately God was sovereign over the future of her ministry. This was true to Margo whether she remained in that particular church, under that particular pastor, or went somewhere else.

NOTES:

“Margo” is not her real name.

[1] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 89.

[2] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Psalm 119:176, Isaiah 53:6, Jeremiah 50:6.

[3] Rardin, The Servant’s Guide to Leadership, 36.

[4] Ibid., 102–103.

[5] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. 1 Timothy 5:17.

[6] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 92.

[7] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ezekiel 34:4–5.

[8] Ibid., v. Matthew 7:15.

[9] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 1285–1287, 1306-1308.

[10] Ciby and Raya, “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach,” 76.

Like a Shepherd Lead Us: Looking Outward

Posted on by
Reply

How often do you hear a leader of a Christian organization being called a shepherd?

Yet, all Christian leadership should look like shepherding.

I mean every Christian who is acting in a leadership role. He could be a CEO, low-level or mid-level manager, church deacon or elder, committee member, or head of the home.

Jesus Christ is the ultimate leader. Here is what he had to say about his leadership:

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

John 10:10-12

Do Nothing Selfishly

Underlying all leadership should be the understanding that I am looking out for someone else’s interests. In Philippians, the Apostle Paul seems to be amplifying Jesus’ words.

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Philippians 2:3-4 (ESV)

There is always self-care: look not only to our own interests. We need to consider our own needs for emotional and physical safety. But Paul emphasizes looking outward probably because we are naturally inward-looking. We most naturally look out for ourselves…it takes work and a disposition molded by the Holy Spirit to consider the needs of others.

Who Are the Needy?

Who are the needy? They are the stakeholders of our ministry.

As a leader I am responsible for the needs of my subordinates in the organization and the recipients of my ministry. In addition, I am accountable to ministry donors. Unfortunately, in the broken world of service, there are sometimes competing interests at work between all of these stakeholders.

Toxic organizational leaders do what is necessary to get from these stakeholders. They consider their own needs as more significant than other’s.

As a result, all manner of manipulation and control of their employees, ministry recipients, and donors takes place by the leadership to achieve their goal of getting from them.

The leadership might hide behind such lofty goals as, “We are here to serve the empoverished [i.e. recipients of the ministry].” Or maybe, “We are accountable to those who give generously to our ministry.“

Image, Image, Image

But for the toxic leader, that is only a smokescreen for serving themselves as leaders. He cares little about the stakeholders God has given him.

The organization’s stakeholders are only cogs in his wheel of ego production. And he may care little but for the image of the organization to build his own ego or pocketbook.

The leadership of one mission organization for which I worked focused mostly on image-building in what appeared to be an attempt to keep the contributions rolling in and for their own sense of greatness.

When a donor agency sent a team to evaluate the educational ministry of the organization, the CEO instructed the science teachers to prominently display science equipment that was rarely used and never at that point in the students’ studies. The teachers were to have the students working with the equipment when the donors arrived. The equipment was immediately put away following the visit.

One student remarked, “I wish this was the normal, but obviously [the leaders] just want to make an impression.”

The deception was quite apparent to the students and the Principal of the school, who told me of it later. He was embarrassed by the duplicity.

In another sham, the ministry produced a promotional brochure to raise donors that featured two students on the cover. The brochure explained that the students were “orphans.” When it was discovered that they were not orphans, and were quite offended by the deception, the ministry leader shrugged it off and explained that the students had signed off on having their picture on brochures when they registered for the school.

We just scratched our heads.

Image, image, image.

The wiseman had something to say about this:

Before destruction a man’s heart is haughty,
but humility comes before honor.

Proverbs 18:12 (ESV)

Putting Our Foot Out

There is certainly nothing wrong with putting our best foot forward. We espouse our strengths in a job interview and we bring attention to our services as an organization to those with whom we seek to partner financially.

But “marketing” for the Christian is really about humbly making known the gifts God has given us so that we may have opportunity to minister to others with those gifts.

It is not about manipulating others for financial gain or ego gratifying image-mongering. When God has gifted individuals or a ministry with the ability to serve others, it is right to make that known that there be those who may receive the ministry the organization provides.

Paul, in essence says this to the Corinthians:

But we will not boast beyond limits, but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God assigned to us, to reach even to you.

2 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV)

Paul will boast in “regard to the area of influence God assigned.” He will “glory” in the abilities God has given him that he might serve others.

But as we put our best foot forward, it is important to make sure it is our foot (the “foot” God has given us) we are putting forward, not someone else’s as Paul goes on to say. We must act in integrity and consider all our “stakeholders,” whether they be our employees, donors, or ministry recipients.

Integrity, integrity, integrity.

Leadership is a work of shepherding. It is about feeding the sheep – all the stakeholders.

It means loving others. Considering others as more important than your own comfort or ego or image.

2600 years ago, God spoke through the prophet and priest, Ezekiel. [Jesus was likely referring to this bit of Old Testament prophecy as he spoke of his ministry as the true Shepherd of Israel – John 10]. God said,

“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.”

Ezekiel 34:1-6

Amen and amen.