Here is a life and leadership principle I have learned the hard way:
Read More
We had the deal of all deals presented to our church a few months ago. Because of the people involved I can’t share details, but it was one of those “too good to be true” scenarios. It came from nowhere and totally rocked my world for a few weeks. I personally had 80 to 100 hours invested. It was going to be huge.
Credibility is important in any leadership position. If a leader desires followers to willfully work with passion to reach an established vision, then he or she must be trusted. Credible leaders have followers that share the organization’s values and work hard to achieve it. When a person’s leadership is not credible, followers are less likely to be team players and will be disloyal to the organization.
Leaders, do you lead from a place of fear or a place of security? In my experience, leaders typically tend to lead from one or the other. The leader dominated by fear is afraid of failing, fears that people are out for his or her position, or struggles to delegate and trust others (including God). The leader dominated by a sense of security trusts his or her abilities, is confident in his or her position and has faith in other people (including God).
Leaders have different styles, personalities, and strengths. For that reason, it only makes sense that leaders use different approaches to carrying out their leadership. That does not mean one approach is better or worse, or even more effective than another approach. They are simply different. In some settings, one may be the better approach at the time.
I have stopped being surprised when I receive criticism. In fact, I have observed that the more success an organization has and the stronger leadership exhibited, the more critics seem to rise. I try to discern which criticism is valid and which is not. (I posted about that previously HERE.) I think it is wrong to simply ignore critics. Some of it has really value, but all leaders will receive it. For that fact, we shouldn’t be surprised.
Another variable in determining strategy that is often overlooked is the strengths of the people within the organization at the time. I posted before about the way organizations typically replace senior leaders. (Read that post HERE.) Organizations usually replace the top position with someone opposite from the one that leaves. They do this to build on a strength they feel the former leader didn’t have.
I had a great couple days this week hanging out with Casey Graham of The Change Group as he visited with Kristin Ruther from The Aspen Group and Tim Stevens and Kem Meyer at Granger Church one day and then Scott Hodge from Orchard Community Church the next day. It was challenging, tiring, and personally rewarding.
Even so, in my position, I often have to say “No”. I have to consider the amount of money and energy expended as it relates to the entire church organization. Honestly, there are times I feel like the dream killer more than I get to be the dream enhancer, because I often have to be the “No” voice, but the fact is, as with any organization, we operate with limited resources and sometimes saying no is the right decision at the time. In these times, I have to walk the delicate balance between saying yes and saying no.
A couple times a year we do an extended weekend retreat. This weekend we are headed to Nashville for an all staff planning retreat. An added twist is that our spouses will join us on Friday night for fellowship and then on Saturday morning for a special brainstorming session. (We think they may have better ideas than we do!)