Perhaps it depends on how we're psychologically wired, but I really like questions. I especially like the questions that push me out of the familiar ways of thinking and acting and into new territory. The longer I'm around the more I realize how crucial the right questions are. For instance, as I observe well-meaning and decent people in the political realm strive for solutions to issues that plague our society, so often they appear to be hamstrung from the start by the assumptions that lead to certain questions. But if the assumptions leading to the questions are off, then the questions that result will not be helpful and the answers to the questions will not get us where we want to go.
Leadership is about asking the tough questions. Ronald Heifitz (who has written a number of books about leadership that are terribly relevant to the church and not-for-profit sector), highlights one of the problems though: when we look for leaders, more often than not we're really looking for saviours. How many times have I heard church committees say, in so many words, if we had the right minister everything would be fine? The definition and appearance of "Right" can vary -- but the sentiment remains: we want someone to show us the way, hopefully in a painless and easy fashion. Heifitz insists that, instead, we should be looking for leaders who ask the challenge us to answer the questions for which there are no easy answers; the ones that challenge us to face new ways.
So here's a question for your congregation or not-for -profit: would you describe yourself as predominantly attractional or missional? "Attractional" means that you are working to get those who are outside (your circle, your church, your organization) inside. "Missional" means getting your organization to go into the places people normally inhabit. For most of my time in congregational ministry my primary focus was "attractional": getting people in to equip them to do something we called "outreach." It is certainly the question I hear from congregational committees: "How do we get more people in?" The outreach component may be there but it's not often articulated. Mostly its about our own survival.
Again with Heifitz: leaders need to know how to focus attention internally or externally (beyond the circle). For him, this would not be just about sermons or the regular newsletter. Heifitz repeatedly insists that one of the powers of the leader is to focus the conversation of the organizational and hold it in uncomfortable places.
Genuine leadership is not about protecting and preserving the institution but using the institution to achieve its ends. However, institutions are not just inert lumps. Institutions have expectations as well. These are enforced in a variety of ways (vows, reviews, positions of authority, etc.). In times of change, we can sometimes see more clearly how those internal mechanisms (rules, polity, structures and so on) can redirect energy and attention from the mission. I'm not someone who believes that structure and administration are all bad! Someone has to create and maintain a set of resources to move the mission forward. If you're going t hold an event to benefit the entire community, someone needs to do the planning. Questions leaders need to ask include: does this part of the structure reinforce the mission or the system; we can do this particular thing, but why do we need to; what's the worst thing that will happen if we don't do that? Increasingly, leaders need a double competency: they need to understand and experience the hairballs of their institution and discern the edges where they can engage purpose, culture, and change. Not easy work, but a holy calling.
©2020 I Ross Bartlett
www.irossbartlett.com
No comments:
Post a Comment