THOUGHTFULLY DRIVING THE PORCELAIN BUS

A Column by John S Schroeder

January 26, 2002

LEADERSHIP is the most illusive of characteristics. Volumes have been written on it, many try to practice it, few ever do it, and those that do cannot usually figure out how they did it. My father once defined leadership as "seeing a parade and stepping in front of it." The older I get the more I tend to agree with that. That definition feels like it somehow cheapens the concept of leadership, but I disagree. There are a couple of comments that I think will clear this up.

When you hear the word "leadership" the parade metaphor does hold up in the fact that you generally picture someone standing in front of a group all going in the same general direction. Therefore, I think most will agree that leadership is something exercised from "in front" of a group as opposed to within. A leader is someone "apart," at least slightly, from the rest of the group. A leader is someone that by virtue of that apartness probably has a better view of where the group is going, and therefore can help the group reach its destination.

The big question is "Can a leader decide a group's destination?" My answer to that question is generally an emphatic NO! Of course there are exceptions. A battlefield military leader must be followed without question. If everyone on the sports team doesn't do what the coach says, winning does not usually follow. But those are very specialized situations with an already clearly defined goal -- win the war or the game. However, when it comes to nations or churches, or businesses to a large extent, the goal is not clearly defined and the group does not simply follow the leader. There are several basic conditions that must be met before a leader can really get the job done.

One thing that is important to remember is that leadership does not come automatically by virtue of being in a "leadership" position. U.S. presidents are routinely derided and discarded while still in office, having spent whatever "political capital" they may have garnered by obtaining the office on some folly. Anyone who has sat on the ruling board of a church (in my personal case we call that a Session) knows that in that body of leaders, there are those that actually lead and those that just cast a vote. Anyone who has been through a genuine crisis with a group of some sort has probably seen those "in charge" collapse under the pressure, but at the same time someone in the ranks rises up to keep things moving. Those that collapse are the 'positional' leaders, but those that rise up are the genuine leaders.

Another important point to remember about leadership is really a principle of British government. That principle is "No one can govern without the consent of the governed." The most powerful potentate, the most dictatorial dictator cannot rule if the people are not willing to be ruled. The best a dictator can hope to do is raise the cost of revolt beyond what the citizenship is willing to pay, but he (or she) can never really lead. This is born out by the fact that dictatorships rarely succeed as nations, they succeed at lining the pockets of the dictator, but the populace is never really rallied to a united cause so the nation as a whole never becomes really great. I strongly recommend a study of British government if you want to understand leadership. It is full of absolute monarchs that were leaders and ones that weren't, and because the Brits wanted to become a great nation, they developed government around those monarchs, so the ones that weren't leaders couldn't hurt them.

Leadership requires two conditions in varying degrees. The first condition is loyalty. That is to say the led must trust the leader and being willing to follow. Loyalty is a difficult word to use in this day and age. The word "loyalty" implies to many an unquestioning commitment regardless of the qualities of the object, but that is not what I mean. In this context, I mean simply that a leader must have the trust and respect of the led. This healthier form of loyalty must be earned and cultivated. The leader can readily violate the loyalty I speak of here and if he or she does, that loyalty should be withdrawn.

The second condition of leadership is a consensus about the goal of the group. There are some images that help explain this, but be careful they are not analogies. If there is no consensus on direction or goals, leadership is like trying to herd cats -- it just won't happen. However, if there is consensus, then even a pig can herd sheep. (If you haven't seen the movie Babe I apologize for this allusion.) Put another way, leadership is about organizing the mob, but the mob long ago made up its mind about what it wants to do.

Having said all of that, there is an inevitable question -- "How does one change the direction of a group?" To be honest, I am not entirely certain that anyone can. In my opinion if one wants a group going in a certain direction, then that one must either find a group already headed that way, or must recruit like-minded people and form the group from scratch. But let's assume for a moment that a group's direction can be changed, how might that be done?

In my opinion, changing a group's direction takes a different skill set than leadership. The skill set that is needed here is salesmanship. What has to be done to change a group's direction? First, the group must be convinced that where it is going is not the right way to go, and secondly, it has to "buy into" the new direction. Think about that last sentence and tell me if that isn't a pretty reasonable definition of sales and marketing. "The purpose of this commercial is to get you to stop buying Tylenol and start buying Advil." Changing a group's direction is an entirely different exercise than leading the group, at least as I have defined leadership here.

Some will debate my definitions stating that what I have defined as leadership, is just one form, and the salesmanship I am discussing here is just another form of leadership. Semantically that can be argued, but the distinction stands. And the distinction is what is important. The fact that the two things require very different skill sets says something vitally important.

You knew I was going to get around to the church at some point didn't you? Let's assume for the moment that the dying mainline denominations need to change direction to keep from dying. That in itself is debatable and is on my list of things to write about in this space, but let's assume it is true for the sake of this discussion. Church leaders are trained in organizing and managing churches; what I have herein defined as leadership -- They are not trained in the salesmanship necessary to change the direction of a group. We have now arrived at the point where people get hurt.

Pastors almost universally assume that the church has to change direction to survive. As has been discussed in this space it's what the studies say, it is what they are taught. But then they try and lead the church in that new direction rather than sell the new direction. Well, what do you do if you are leading a group of people in a certain direction and at least some of them don't want to go that way? You either convince them of the wisdom of the direction you are trying to take the group (salesmanship) or you cast them out of the group so they don't slow you down (leadership). Given that Pastors are in large part leaders, not sellers, the later option is usually what happens, and in my never to be humble opinion, that is the point where Pastors cross the line into evil.

The new directions the church is looking for in this day are not matters of heresy. They are not matters of disbelief; rather they are matters of style, taste, and enthusiasms. These are not the types of things that Jesus commanded the disciples to brush the dirt from their feet over. In churches all over the country, long time church members, faithful servants of Jesus are being cast off because they don't buy into the new program.

This is why all the great church revivals and reformations happen outside the formal structures of the church. Those inside the church are equipped as leaders; those outside have the freedom to be salesman. My prayer for this time in our church history is that Pastors everywhere can learn salesmanship. The church really will destroy itself if it discards its good and faithful servants. Besides, if the proposed new directions really are the way the church is supposed to go, I will bet big bucks that after enlightened discussion, those good and faithful servants will agree to go with. If they don't, then I have very serious questions about the wisdom of the direction.

With Love,