Leadership by stealth

The best leadership is transparent and out in the open. People know where the leader is taking them and why. The leadership agenda is clearly articulated and people are invited to join the leader in moving toward a specific vision and goal. 

On occasion I encounter a very different kind of leadership - stealth leadership. This style infects some pastors who have an agenda for the church they serve which is not stated up front, is contrary to the direction the church has been going and is essentially a leadership hijack where the congregation, board and even most of the staff are unaware of the intentions of the leader. They have an agenda but they are not sharing that agenda. It is leadership by stealth and it is fundamentally dishonest.

The dishonesty is in the lack of honest disclosure as to what their intentions are, not the direction itself which may be good or unhelpful. Leadership by stealth creates confusion and uncertainty because the leader is moving in directions and making decisions that are not clearly stated so the agenda cannot be debated. Rather people are left with observing the actions of the leader and wondering what the agenda actually is. 

In addition, the leader may bring a few key allies into their orbit and share their agenda with them which - if they are staff or board members - creates additional confusion and division since some key people know the intentions of the leader while others do not. And, when a discussion of the direction does come up, the allies defend the leaders actions and there is no dialogue with them either. In other words, leadership by stealth is not only dishonest (because it is not stated up front and transparent) but confusing and decisive. 

When other individuals challenge the leader's direction they are in a tough spot because while they can see the problematic decisions the leader is making they cannot debate the overall agenda since it is not stated. 

Healthy leaders do not lead by stealth. They are clear on where they desire to go and why and are open to discussing their direction with leadership, staff and congregations. If you are in a situation where you have a leader who is leading by stealth it is worth a conversation to clarify intentions, direction and get it on the table so that it can be discussed and debated. You cannot debate what you don't know.

Architects, contractors and builders

Are you an architect, contractor or builder? Understanding which role you play and then ensuring that you primarily stay in that role can make all the difference in your success.

Architects are those who design ministry philosophy, structures and who connect the dots on mission, vision, guiding principles and end results. Like architects of building projects they do a lot of thinking, dreaming of what can be and look for design options that will best leverage their ministry. Generally there is one key architect in an organization - the senior leader of the organization or of a division.

Architects then find contractors who can ensure that the vision is carried out. Contractors are team leaders who can oversee the building out of major ministry areas. They spend enough time with the architect to ensure that they understand the plan and the blueprint as their part of the building must be in sync with the plans and work of the other contractor teams. No team is independent of the other or the structure is unsound. The larger the ministry the more critical it is that team leaders spend with one another and the architect to ensure alignment and a solid ministry structure. It takes a specific skill for contractors to build great teams of builders, to stay in alignment with other contractors and to always be building in sync with the blueprint.

The vast majority of us are of course builders, working for a specific contractor (team leader) with the skill needed to build out our part of the ministry. Builders must be team players because they work with a team of specialists to accomplish a specific task. They more they understand the whole, however, the greater their ability to ensure that their part fits the whole and to make building (ministry) decisions that fit the overall blueprint.

Architects (senior leaders) get themselves into trouble when they do not design clear and coherent blueprints for the organization and work closely with their contractors (team leaders) to ensure that the plan they have is strong, aligned, feasible and can product the desired result. They also get into trouble when they move out of their architectural role to try to tell the contractors what to do or how to do their work. If you are the senior leader of an organization or division how are you doing on the architectural piece?

Contractors get into trouble when they don't understand or buy into the blueprints of the ministry. Or when they try to build their piece of the building (ministry) without regard to the other contractors and their teams. Contractors play three roles. They ensure that their ministry is in sync with the overall vision and commitments of the organization. They ensure that what they do is in sync with other ministry leaders in the organization. And they ensure that they have a quality results oriented team. If you are a contractor, how are you doing in your role?

Builders get into trouble when they don't work with other members of their team to ensure the best work possible done in the most efficient way possible. Team means everything to a builder who must work on a project in sync with others. Non team players on ministry teams hurt the whole team. They also get into trouble when they don't understand how their piece of the ministry pie fits with the other pieces so that there is a coherent whole. If you are a builder, how are you doing in your building role?

In too many ministries there is not clear architecture, there is not alignment and cooperation between ministries and playing on a unified team is not a reality. This hurts everyone. How is your team, leadership community or senior leader doing?

Oh: unless there is a whole lot of communication, cooperation and goodwill between architects builders and contractors...the process does not work. Architects, builders and contractors who don't talk to one another or listen to one another...get what they built and it is often not pretty!

The soft side of leadership

I spoke with a member of a large organization this week who told me that the morale of the staff was hurting. One of the factors was that the new president did not connect with the staff like the previous president. When I probed as to why that was he could not explain the difference except that it was different and it had made a difference with morale.

There may well be reasons for this. The business is a lot larger than it used to be and many employees would not know the new president. Economic realities may well dictate that he spend his time on different issues than his predecessor. Or, he may not be perceived as relational.

What I do know is that there is an important but "soft" side to leadership which is not about strategies, vision, budgets or execution. It is showing an appreciation for one's staff, being personable and approachable when with staff, and caring about the impact of decisions on people in the organization.

One leader I have watched breezes in and out of the office with a sense of importance, rarely stopping to greet those he passes and when he does he says, "I'm really busy." What he communicates is "I am really full of myself and what I'm up to is important but you are not." This is a ministry leader - a pastor - and his lack of interest in or time for staff sends a strong message to those who work for him.

Rarely does he engage staff personally, stop into their offices or invite them into his and sends a strong message that he is the leader, is busy and does important things. Behind his back his staff have a name for him and it is not one he would appreciate - but it fits well. Any leader who sends those kinds of message may have authority but is not a good leader.

It also breeds mistrust among staff because trust is only possible in the context of relationship. Certainly a high view of ourselves and the perception that we use people rather than value people breeds mistrust.

The leader I work for is never too busy to stop, talk, engage staff and to find out what is happening in their lives, no matter where they are in the organizational structure. He is widely loved, trusted and respected while the individual above is neither loved nor respected. The difference? Treating people with dignity, concern and appreciation.

Organizations, whether businesses or ministries are made up of people. It is the staff which represents the heart, the intellectual capital and the ability of the organization to deliver something of value to those outside of the organization.

Staff knows whether their leaders use them or value them. That is essentially the difference in the illustrations above. People may fear a leader because he or she uses people but they will neither respect nor love them.

One of the best things leaders can do is to pay attention to those around them and those who work for them. It will deeply impact the morale of the group and treating people with dignity, well, it is what Jesus would do - and did.

Those who get their way though intimidation in the church

Intimidation is a great way to get your way in church settings, mainly because most people are conflict adverse and don't want to go head to head with people who are bullies in their tactics. Bullies are no different in the church than in other arenas of life - their tactic is simple: intimidation.

Online Your Dictionary defines it this way: "To frighten into submission, compliance or acquiescence." It is the use of force of personality to get one's way because one is too intimidated to go up against them. By they way, those who do this know exactly what they are doing They know they are trying to force others to agree with them or to a decision or direction they want. Bullies have learned over time that they can bully others into submission.

In church settings, this intimidation may well have a spiritual veneer wrapped around it. Often, the bully will underhandedly bring a few other key voices into his/her circle in order to strengthen their case. Sometimes those they bring in are more vociferous in their tactics than the one who influenced them in their direction which is why one often needs to ask the question, who is the voice behind the voices when common issues are being voiced by several.

Whenever you have one board member who can effectively veto decisions of the board as a whole you have a bully. Whenever there is someone in the church who can veto decisions of the board, you have a bully. In case you feel the word "bully" is not gracious, Paul calls them "wolves" in Acts 21. This kind of behavior ought to be illegal in the church.

Here is something to know about bullies. They play unfair because they have learned that it is how they can get their way which is what bullying is all about - getting their way. What is also true is that when they are confronted on their behavior they get very nervous because at their root they are often insecure people which is why they use dysfunctional means to get their way and bully others. When confronted they will often back off quickly. 

At the board level, one prevents this behavior by a board covenant which does not allow unhealthy behaviors to prevail and when they do it gives them permission to remove the offender from the board.

At the congregational level, the loud, intimidating voices must be met by reasoned response from others who are willing to take them on. Congregations often assume that the loud voices represent a large faction of the congregation when in fact, they usually represent a very small faction (often just themselves) and when another person with courage challenges their position the congregation understands that there are others like themselves out there who have a reasoned position. To let people make loud, intimidating and obnoxious statements without a measured response is irresponsible.

Where it is clear that one has a divisive individual in the congregation it is up to the leaders to confront the individual's behavior and make it clear that it is unacceptable. Most bullies last as long as they do because no one has the courage to confront them. This is wrong.

Paul mentions three kinds of wolves the hurt the flock in the New Testament: The wolf of heresy, the wolf of ongoing unrepentant sin and the wolf of division. We do pretty good on the first two but the most common wolf in the evangelical world - division - is one that we usually don't deal with well. And it does our congregations a great deal of harm. 

In one church I am very familiar with, the board, congregation, district leaders and denominational leaders were unwilling to deal with a wolf of division which led to two decades of division within a congregation. Think of the pain because of a failure of courage. 

Bullies and intimidators don't like accountability. Putting into place measures that bring accountability and then following through is the best remedy for dealing with them. Give them their way and they will disempower and destroy a congregation.

Heart or head leadership

I encounter three kinds of leaders. Those who lead from their heart, those who lead from their head and those who lead from both. Let me explain.

Heart leaders have very tender hearts and because of it everyone loves them. They are like chaplains to their staff and they don't want anyone to be unhappy. When someone is, they want to solve it. 

There is, however, a significant downside to those who lead only from their heart. First, their "chaplaincy" role can get in the way of their leadership and supervisory role. Second, in their desire to make everyone happy they easily agree to things that are not in the best interests of the organization as a whole and may in fact be unfair to others in the organization (when preference is given). Third, they find it hard to make tough choices that impact people because their strongest bent is not to cause anyone unhappiness. And fourth, they often ignore issues that require confrontation since they are deeply conflict adverse. 

The irony is that over time, a leader who leads primarily from their heart creates a dysfunctional organization rather than the healthy one they think they are creating because of their sensitive heart. 

Then there is the leader who leads only from his/her head. They are all facts, policies, figures, and bottom line. Often they will make decisions that may be right but in ways that hurt people. There is no margin for compassion or flexibility on issues that they could be flexible on. The downside is evident. There is not a spirit of empathy or compassion, individual needs are not addressed even when they could be and process is not a high priority so that even good decisions are carried out in a way that disempower people. This style of leadership can be as dysfunctional as the first style, just for opposite reasons.

There is a third option that is far healthier than these two and that is to lead from both our hearts and our head. Here we are committed to always doing the right thing (not meaning the easy thing) but in a way that honors people and takes their concerns into account. In this leadership style we take people's issues into account but at the same time do not do for one what we would be unwilling to do for another and do not show favoritism! Nor do we ignore personnel or work issues because we don't want to make others feel bad. That is simply leadership default and while it may feel fair it is really unfair to everyone else in the organization.

Heart/Head leadership makes these commitments:

• I will always take into account the legitimate concerns of my staff
• I will be flexible to meet their needs without showing favoritism or extending to one what I would not extend to another all things being equal
• I will make decisions that are best for the organization as a whole but be deeply sensitive to how those decisions impact people and are carried out
• I will foster a caring, collegial workplace where people genuinely matter and where we are committed to accomplishing the mission God has given us
• I will do all I can to honor staff in the accomplishment of our mission, even when changes need to be made

Since all of us are wired toward either heart or head leadership, having people around us who can balance out our bent is helpful and important. Both matter!

Cutting through the fog of what good leadership looks like!

For those of us who lead, there are constant voices telling us how to do it, what good leaders look like, the secrets to leadership success and the din can be loud. Even disheartening! We know that we will never be as good a leader as (fill in the blank) or achieve what (fill in the blank) has done or have the influence as (fill in the blank).

So let me be perfectly frank: Much of what we hear and think about leadership is - well - crock! Ezra was not Nehemiah, who was not Esther, who was not Deborah, who was not Paul who was not David who was not Barnabas who was not you who is not me.

Here is what we do know about leaders. We are all made differently and all lead from the wiring and gifting that God uniquely gave to us. We should not expect others to lead like we do  and we should not expect to lead like others. Period!

In addition, because I lead a larger or smaller team than someone else is not a measure of my leadership skill. It is where God has placed me and my job is to lead as well as possible.

Finally, there are some universal characteristics of good leaders. They clarify the future and where the group needs to go. They develop, empower and release people into meaningful ministry and responsibility. They model the character and practices that they expect of others. They develop those they lead. They keep the team focused on the main thing and measure results. They give away credit for success and take responsibility for failure. They build teams of competent people.

How they do these things will be a matter of how they are gifted and wired. That they do these things indicates that they can lead well. Oh, one other thing, when they look behind them they see people who are willingly following.

If you lead, don't get caught in the comparison trap or try to lead like others. If God wanted you to be them He would have made you them. Instead He made you you for a specific reason. Learn from others but lead from the way in which God made you.

A Submarine Captain on the Power of Leadership Language

From Fast Company - A great read on the power of language and words that empower or disempower. 


http://www.fastcompany.com/1843334/a-submarine-captain-on-the-power-of-leadership-language?partner=homepage_newsletter

Seven Dangers of leading alone rather than through team

Lone ranger leadership is dangerous territory and there are plenty of examples that bear witness to it. Leading through team is far healthier, more effective and can contribute to long term effectiveness.


Here are some advantages of leading through team rather than by ourselves.


1. We are only as good as the skills we possess. When we combine our skills with those of others we multiply the possible outcomes, enjoy robust dialogue and are not limited by our own skills and gifting. Leading alone has built in limitations.


2. We are never as good as we think we are but left to our own we over inflate our effectiveness and under estimate our weaknesses. Leading through team - if it is a healthy team - protects us by compensating for our inflation and weaknesses. 


3. We can only handle a certain span of relationships. Thus when we lead alone we inevitably plateau whatever we are leading at some point. Leading through team, on the other hand is immediately scaleable if done right.


4. We hear and believe what we want to. All of us have a bias about what we hear and believe. None of us are unbiased in our judgements and decisions. Having a team around us that gives us another perspective and tells us the truth when we need to hear it can save us a great deal of dumb tax. 


5. Leadership isolation eventually leads to a bad place. Lone ranger leaders easily become isolated and autonomous, especially if they see success. It is a dangerous place because isolation often leads to actions that we would not engage in when we are in community. We were made for community not isolation. 


6. Alone breeds pride while team breeds humility. Leading through team tempers our natural tendency to think too greatly of ourselves as it is by definition no longer about me but about us. Leaders who lead through team share the success with the team - in fact the best ones credit the team! Lone ranger leaders have no one to share the success with (they think) and often take the credit.


7. Leading alone is lonely while leading through team is collegial and offers the support of a group. Leadership is lonely enough. Trying to do it without others is lonelier still. Healthy individuals enjoy the benefit of relationships in the journey.


If you lead, don't do it alone. Form a healthy team. You will be a better leader, a better individual and your organization will thank you.

Fear based leadership

There are ministry leaders whose primary leadership trait is that of fear. Before any decision is made, there are endless discussions of whether the decision is right, lots of second guessing, revisiting of the issue, dragging feet on pulling the trigger and anxiety about whether they should move forward or not. If some leaders are too impulsive, fear based leaders are so risk adverse and fearful of something going wrong that they become paralyzed by that fear.


This is crazy making for staff who want to get on with things and become frustrated when their decisions or recommendations get the same scrutiny, questions, and reservations as their boss's. Endless meetings are had, issues rehashed time and again, decisions made and then revisited. 


Why? Because the senior leader is so driven by not making a mistake, not communicating something improperly, not doing something that might fail. It is caution gone amok. It causes him or her not only to scrutinize their own decisions but those of others and leads to micromanaging the work of others out of the same fear. It is fear based leadership and is not true leadership at all.


Fearful leadership comes out of a lack of self confidence, deep anxiety about making a bad call and fear of what others will think if they make a poor decision. The fear paralysis of the leader becomes a paralysis for the organization as a whole. Because leading is about being in front of others, leading them into the future, fear based leadership is not leadership at all but is really just the opposite: keeping the organization from moving forward out of an abundance of caution. 


Fear based leaders need serious coaching or counseling to get at the root of the fear that haunts them. Unless they can understand those fears and face them they will not be able to lead or if they do will not attract and keep other good staff. 


If you suffer from decision making fear ask yourself, "What is the absolute worst thing that could happen if the decision went south?" How likely is that worst thing to happen? If it did would it be so bad? One soon realizes that the fear is not only unfounded but silly when you play out the scenario. 

Empowerment that actually disempowers.Leadership by benign neglect

Think of empowerment as a horizontal line. On the left hand side is the manager or leader who micromanages - highly disempowering to those they lead. At the extreme right side of the continuum is total empowerment or actually neglect of staff which is equally disempowering.

Leaders on the right end of the continuum often think that they are highly empowering leaders. After all they rarely if ever tell staff what to do. But what they are actually doing is neglecting their staff to the point that staff must figure out what their job and priorities are without any structure, framework or guidance. They also have to solve problems without the help of their leader. This is leadership by benign neglect. More accurately it is a lack of leadership that usually makes for frustrated staff.

Leaders who lead by benign neglect think that they are doing their staff a favor. In reality they are not doing their staff any favors.

Here is why.

First, when there is a leadership vacuum, someone will fill it. If a leader or manager is not leading someone else will exert their influence. That someone else may or may not be a favor to the rest of the team. They are free to control others and drive their agenda, however, because the organizational leader is not providing adequate oversight.

Second, people want and need clarity about their role and what the organization is up to. I have actually had staff who work for benign neglect leaders tell me that they don't know what they are supposed to be doing or what their role is. Staff who must fend for themselves are generally frustrated.

Third, staff often feel as if their manager or leader is not engaged in the team or organization. The truth is they are right! The leader is engaged in his or her personal agenda but not in helping the staff of the organization if they lead by benign neglect. Neglect is of course not leadership but an abdication of leadership.

In my experience this situation occurs for a number of reasons. It may be that the leader has grown an organization by the force of their vision but does not have the skills to be an organizational leader. It may be that the leader is more interested in their own world than providing the leadership that the group needs. Either way, their staff feel disempowered.

If a senior leader is not wired to organize, lead, provide clarity to staff, mentor and coach staff they need to find someone who can and will. This is where a strong COO role is needed but in order to be successful, the senior leaders needs to cede organizational authority to the COO and then stay out of staff and management issues. In the absence of a strong internal leader, benign neglect leaders will eventually stall or plateau their ministry because the larger a ministry the more critical clarity and good organizational structures become.

Back to the empowerment continuum. The place to be is in the middle. Not micromanaging but not neglecting. It is empowerment withing boundaries with clarity and accountability. No favors are done staff with micromanagement an no favors are done with benign neglect. Both disempower rather than empower.

Leaders as moving targets

One of the most frustrating genre of leaders to work for are those who move at the speed of lightning, have a plethora of ideas, are on to something new regularly and are idea people who often want their staff to deliver on those many ideas. In short they are moving targets that rarely get pinned down.


Moving target leaders create a lot of chaos for their staff. They are hard to keep up with, are rarely on a consistent course and therefore create uncertainty, lots of extra work and consternation of staff. 


This is why staff turnover for these leaders is generally high and the more capable the staff member the more likely it is that they will leave after a short tenure since constant change is an unempowering and uncertain culture in which to work. 


By their very nature, leaders who move at the speed of light rarely are able to empower other significantly because they are constantly determining the direction themselves. Issues like planning, annual plans and consistent budgets are tough since things change regularly. It can be crazy making for staff.


The challenge is that moving target leaders often can get an organization to a certain size by their sheer energy. And as the ministry grows, the challenge of keeping it moving in an consistent direction increases. As do the staff challenges.


This type of leadership can work in the early entrepreneurial ministry start up stage. However, at some point, unless the leader can transition to a true organizational leader rather than an individual producer who kicks up a lot of dust, the organization starts to suffer, staff get weary and boards become concerned. 


If you are a moving target leader or a board member for one and the organization is at a size and place where it needs more stability what do you do?


One option is to get executive coaching for the leader to help them transition to a more stable leadership culture. In my experience about 50% of of moving target leaders can make the transition with a lot of work and coaching. But they must truly want to make the changes necessary and it is not easy.


Another option is to hire a COO for the ministry who is the buffer between the moving target leader and the rest of the staff. This can work with a lot of negotiation and will on behalf of both parties but it will remain a constant challenge for the CEO and the COO.


Another approach is to suggest to the moving target leader that the organization needs a different kind of leadership style at this stage of their existence and that they need to make a transition. This often takes the leader by surprise because they are rarely tuned into the chaos that they create by their leadership style. However, boards that see the chaos and dysfunction on staff will sometimes make the call for the leader. They may not even recognize the true reason for their discomfort but they know that the organization is weary of the constant flow of new ideas and directions.


A final approach is to recognize that this is the way it will be and live with the chaos and uncertainty. This will generally mean significant staff turn over and good leaders who will choose not to serve on the board or staff for long. 


Small entrepreneurial ministries can live with leaders who are moving targets. The larger the ministry grows, however, the more problematic it becomes.