How the past can become a threat to your future

Every leader and organization faces the dilemma. How they did things in the past successfully got them to where they are today but will often not get them to where they need to go tomorrow. Yet the past is what they know and have experienced while the future is not known and has not been experienced. Good leaders thus live in a dynamic tension between the past and the future - knowing that their knowledge of the past is often a detriment to moving into the future.

I have seen this tension about what is known (the ways of the past) and what is unknown (the ways of the future) literally paralyze leaders from taking the necessary steps to lead their organization into the future. After all, the unknown requires measured risk while the known requires no risk at all (except, ironically, the very survival of the ministry). 

Healthy leaders understand this tension and also know that while we can and should learn from both our failures and successes in the past, we must always be moving the organization we lead toward the future with all of its unknowns. This requires courage because we know what the road behind us was but we don't know what the road in front of us is. Our GPS can take us to what is but not to what will be.

Therein lies the dilemma. When I drive home from work each night I do it by habit and without any thinking about where I need to go. It is familiar, comfortable and second nature. Not so the future which requires a lot of thinking, evaluating, looking at trends, emerging opportunities, and evaluation of what is currently being done. 

Churches get caught in this dilemma all the time, doing what they always did and then wondering why attendance and giving are down. Often they are simply not responding any longer to the needs of a new day. One church I know is known for its exceptional biblical exposition and preaching which is always excellent (and which I deeply believe in). But, there is no application of the Biblical truth to every day living. The pastor is living in the past when there was a general knowledge of the Bible and truth whereas today there is not and without helping people make application to their lives they are no longer meeting the needs of a different day. It should be no surprise that both the attendance and giving are down.

Leadership is about leading people somewhere and much of that has to do with leading into the unknowns of the future. That means deep thinking, careful exegesis of our context and being willing to risk new strategies and ways of thinking to respond to the needs of a new day. It is all about not allowing the past to become a threat to the future.

a messy world and messy leaders

We often think of our Biblical heroes as people who were born that way. Just the opposite is true. We have always lived in a messy world and our Biblical heroes were no exception.

Take Moses, for example. We know him as the guy who rescued God's  people from slavery, as a deeply humble guy and one who talked to God face to face. I can't compete with that. But what we forget is that he too had a messy background and it took God 80 years to prepare him for his life assignment.

Everyone has issues and so did Moses. Consider this. While he grew up in wealth, splendor and privilege as a member of the Pharaoh's household he knew who he was: an Israelite who should have been a slave rather than royalty. Talk about identity issues!

Those issues came to a head when at 40, Moses took justice into his own hands, killed an Egyptian who was mistreating an Israelite and was forced to run for his life, ending up as a shepherd in another land. In one day he went from privilege and wealth to working as a shepherd with nothing to his name. In addition he now was a felon and a wanted man. Obviously he had an anger management problem.

I would guess that for the forty years he worked as a shepherd (he didn't even have his own flock but looked after the flock of his father in law) he felt like he was a has been. He had blown his chance, God would never use him for anything and he was consigned to a forgotten existence and a wasted life. 

If you doubt that, think of Moses' conversation with God at the burning bush. Finally God was calling him to something and Moses kept pushing back. Why? He felt unqualified, lacked the confidence to say yes, and gave all manner of excuses with a final comment, "O Lord, please send someone else." Of course, God never calls us to do anything that we can do by ourselves but only in His power but it took quite a while for God to convince Moses of that.

Of course God had different ideas. God is never in a hurry and he is always up to something. During those year from 40 to 80, while Moses felt he was stuck on a shelf, God was developing a relationship with Moses that would sustain him through the next 40 years in the wilderness leading a people tough to lead.

Four lessons emerge from Moses past. First, God can redeem any past for His divine purposes. Even our pasts! Second, while we may think we have been put on a shelf, God is always up to something, preparing us for what He has for us. Third, God never calls us to do anything we can do by ourselves. Why should He? His work is a divine work that requires divine power. Fourth, God uses regular people to do His divine work in the power of His Holy Spirit. 

Moses had a past with a lot of issues, just like we do. Yet he used Moses just as He desires to use us. 

Success, resentment and criticism

It is an interesting phenomenon but it reveals something about our own hearts. The greater one's success in ministry the more criticism they receive and the more cynicism about their ministry. This criticism and cynicism says nothing about the one they are directed against. It says a lot about those who display the attitude.

I have had many conversations with pastors about large churches in their area. It seems as if there is a rule that we need to find something negative about them because they are large and influential. Sure there are times when we ought to have concerns (health and wealth teaching, legalism or teaching that is not Biblical). That I understand. But often, the real issue is our resentment at their success and a need to lower their standing in order to increase ours.

Here is an interesting question. Is it even necessary to speak negatively of other ministries? Usually not...and if we do what is our true motivation? Even Paul had strong detractors - those who didn't like his influence. If Paul did, it is inevitable that others will too. 

No leaders are perfect and none above criticism for some issues. But neither are we. They simply have more attention focused on them because they happen to lead a large ministry. In most cases they did not ask for the attention and may even resent it but it is what it is. Why should we follow the crowd in throwing stones? It was Paul's advice to use words that build up rather than tear down.

The bottom line is that our tendency to criticize those who are successful is most often a reflection of our hearts, our issues, our resentments and our desires rather than the success of others. If we are going to criticize we need first to look inside and ask what in our hearts creates that need.

Gains and losses in leadership

In leadership, no matter the level, most gains come with an unexpected cost - that of loss.

I spoke recently with a senior leader who is struggling with the sense of loss as he relinquishes responsibilities to others so that he can do what he is called to do - be the architect of the ministry. His dilemma is this: unless he relinquishes things he used to do he cannot take the ministry to the next level. But in that relinquishment there is a real sense of loss over things he loves to do and used to do.

There is another factor involved. The activity given up in order to fly at a higher altitude is also activity that gives a sense that one is contributing something significant to the organization. Often, one must give up activity in order to think, envision, coach others and work on taking the organization to the next level of productivity.

In doing less, many senior leaders wonder if they are really contributing something significant anymore. Often internal pressure toward activity causes them to spend time on things that need to be relinquished to others rather than doing it themselves.

One need not be a senior leader to struggle with a sense of loss. Anytime an individual producer takes on a staff member, they must relinquish what was once their activity. When they do not relinquish responsibility they disempower (see prior post). There is always loss with gain. Healthy individuals recognize the loss and are conscious of the internal pressure to keep what needs to be relinquished.

If there is loss in relinquishment, why relinquish what we know we can do and do it well? We do so in order to focus on issues that allow us to grow the ministry. Our desire for missional fulfillment is higher than our desire to keep what we used to do. We take the loss for ministry gain. That is why the senior leader above is struggling through a difficult transition. He is committed to taking his ministry to the next level and in order to do so he needs to relinquish many things he used to do and focus on those things that only he can do as the senior leader of the organization. Mission trumps his discomfort at the loss in the process.

Relational breakdowns

It happens way to often in the Christian world. There is relational breakdown between believers that is not addressed.

It may be an offence committed by one party that they are not even aware of but it is held against them by another. It may be disagreements over strategy or philosophy that causes one to marginalize the other. In many cases it actually has no root in reality but one party makes assumptions about the other party and never bothers to clarify whether those assumptions are indeed correct.

No matter the cause, such relational breakdown has an impact that goes beyond the two who don't understand each other. Because of one or both parties mistrust, others around them are infected by the mistrust because it is very hard to hide one's attitude toward another. That means that relational breakdown impacts the ministry that we are a part of. It is not a victimless sin.

The Apostle Paul encourages us to live at peace with one another as much as it is possible. In other words, when we become aware of relational breakdown it is our responsibility to try to address it whether we were the cause or not.

Our unwillingness to try to bring peace is harmful to the work of God and may in fact be sinful on our part. To hold grudges or live with relational breakdown and not have tried to bridge the gap is one of the common but unfortunate tendencies of our lower nature. We have all been guilty at one time or another. Part of spiritual maturity is learning to proactively try to bridge the gap when we become aware of one.

The most obvious step to bridging relational gaps is to start with a conversation. Many assumptions we make about others are wrong. A pastor may assume motives about a board member who challenges him or a team member about another team member.

My experience is that my assumptions about poor motives have almost always been wrong! Because I assumed poor motives I then caused a wall to go up in my own mind about the other. In such cases, it is our fault for the relational disconnect. The other party may in fact be clueless that there is even an issue.

Often, if we are willing to probe and try to understand the other's heart we find out that not only are there not poor motives but we actually want the same thing - but have been misunderstanding one another. Asking questions while not assuming motives or being judgemental can at least get the issues on the table. Unless they are on the table there is no means of dealing with them.
Where the issues are thorny it may be necessary to have a series of conversations or to bring a neutral party into the discussion to seek understanding.

Not all relational disconnects can be resolved because it takes two to want resolution. Most can, if one of the parties will press into the disconnect, acknowledge that it is there and seek to bridge the gap. Even if they know that they were not the cause, a mature individual will seek to resolve it and will not ignore it.

Taking the step of resolution is not always easy. But relational breakdowns are dangerous to a church or ministry organization. That danger ought to outweigh our fear of confronting it. Often we will find that the other party is relieved to solve it.

Overcoming defensive attitudes

Defensiveness among leaders can have a devastating impact on our ability to lead. Defensive leaders end up hurting themselves because their defensiveness prevents people from telling them the truth and if you don’t know the truth about what others think it is very difficult to lead. I would rather know facts I don’t like than not know them at all.

The root of defensiveness is personal insecurity. The logic goes something like this: “If I am wrong, then I am not a good leader so I cannot be wrong. If I cannot afford to be wrong I will push back on those who think another path is a better one.”

Ironically, in adopting a defensive posture, leaders actually lose credibility with others even though they feel they have preserved it by defending their position. Defensive leaders live with the allusion that they know what people think when in reality their defensiveness leaves them clueless and deeply vulnerable as a result.

When leaders are defensive those they lead talk about them to one another rather to them. It may not be healthy but they have trained their team not to address certain issues. Team members are smart enough to know what opinions they are allowed to share and where they need to keep silent.

The cost of defensiveness is not only that of not knowing what others think but a great loss of intellectual capital. It is in multiple counselors and robust dialogue that we come to the best strategy. In addition, it is in the process of that dialogue that we come to a shared ownership of the strategy. But this requires the ability to engage in honest and forthright dialogue. To the extent that a leader is insecure and defensive, that dialogue will not take place. As Lencioni points out in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, dialogue builds trust while the lack of it generates mistrust.

Over the years I have adopted a principle that I seek to live by: Nothing to prove, nothing to lose. I only need to be right if I have something to prove. If I have nothing to prove I no longer need to be right. Further, I only have something to lose if I’m trying to prove something. If I have nothing to prove, then by definition I have nothing to lose. If leaders understood and lived this principle they would not live with the huge amount of anxiety they live with – anxiety caused by the need to be right – and therefore be a “great leader.”

With an attitude of nothing to prove, nothing to lose, I remind myself when others push back or even attack (it does happen to all leaders) that it is OK. I no longer need to be right, nor do I fear being proved wrong (all of us are at times). I can just be me with great openness to the opinions of others. I do not need to agree with others but I don’t need be defensive with others. In fact, it is through a non defensive attitude that I get the very best thoughts from those on my team and in the organization I lead. It is only through a non defensive attitude that we get the very best intellectual capital and best tackle the problems and opportunities we face.

How much can you bite off?

Visionary leaders love to get stuff done. A lot of it. And it you look at vision plans they often look way too big. It looks great but it is not realistic. It might be realistic over a period of years but not in any single year.

Here is a general rule of thumb. No individual or organization can pay attention to more than three to five truly strategic things at any one time. In fact, the fewer "big rocks" you tackle at a time the better off you are - in terms of doing those big rocks well.

Leaders, teams and organizations that choose a few initiatives at a time and do them well get far more done over time than those who in their optimism bite off a whole bunch of initiatives but are left with not being able to pull them off well - if at all. In the end, "less is more."

What matters the most is having clarity around mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and the culture you are creating and then running a few key initiatives each year to move you closer to those goals. A consistent direction over time combined with a few well chosen ministry initiatives that move you closer to your end goal is a very powerful combination.

These are the kinds of organizations described by Jim Collins in his two books, Good to Great and Built to Last. Classics if you have not read them! And, in my book, Leading From the Sandbox.

Organization wide, our mission with 550 staff members does not drive more than two to three key initiatives each year. I would rather do one or two and drive them through the fabric of ReachGlobal than to try more than that and not have them as part of our DNA. Seen over a period of ten years, those carefully chosen initiatives will produce very powerful results.

That philosophy requires three things from leaders. One, being clear on where we are going long term. Two, choosing the right initiatives to focus on in any one year. And three, great patience (the hard part), knowing that the process will bring huge change and ministry results - intentionally - but over time.

If you eat too much food at a meal you get a stomach ache. If ministries bite off too much they are ineffective - exchanging long term health for unrealized short term gain.

So:
Are you clear on where your ministry is going long term?
Are you choosing with great care the initiatives you are running?
Can you be patient for strong long term results?