What's Best Next

You are here: Home / Archives for 3 - Leadership

The Guys in the Field

by

Awhile back I referenced this quote from Colin Powell regarding his bias towards the “guys in the field.”  I’ve been asked what biblical principle was behind my thinking.

The biblical principle I was referring to is that those in a stronger position are to use their greater strength (position, power, authority, or even money, though that’s not in view in this post) on behalf of those in a weaker position.

That’s what we see in the example of Christ. Christ has all strength, power, and authority, and uses it to serve those who have less. Hence, he came to save us, and then also gave us that principle to govern all of our leadership (Matthew 20:25-28; John 13:12-20). We also see this throughout the OT–the “righteous” and “just” are viewed not just as those who avoid doing deliberate harm to people, but those who use their resources, power, and authority to stand up for those in lesser positions–especially the weak and mistreated. Paul also bases his argument in 2 Corinthians 8 on these things.

So, how do these principles apply to the specific case of the post? In a ministry or any organization, those in top leadership have certain advantages–more authority, more power, and so forth. Those beneath them have less advantages–they don’t have the same authority to carry out their thinking, for example, and aren’t in on all the leadership meetings, and so have less opportunity to be heard, just by the nature of things.

Hence, Christian leaders ought to seek to compensate for this by giving preference to those who are in lesser positions of formal authority. This will often result in the best insights (though, of course, not always).

Note that I’m not saying here we should be partial. You asses people’s ideas and actions truthfully–based on the merits. What I’m saying is that we should go out of our way to give a greater opportunity for those in lesser positions of authority to be heard. And, along with that, usually those who are closer to the action (in Powell’s quote, those in the field) have more accurate information and so are likely to have informed, good ideas.

H3 Leadership Q&A with Brad Lomenick

by

Brad Lomenick’s latest book H3 Leadership: Be Humble. Stay Hungry. Always Hustle just released at the end of last month.

I highly recommend anything Brad writes. His experience leading Catalyst and working with some of the greatest thought leaders of the day give him a unique angle and depth of insight.

In this book Brad identifies what he describes as the 20 key habits that great leader shave in common, all built within the foundational elements of H3- Humble, Hungry, and Hustle.

Here are a few Q&A’s on the book.

Can you give us a quick overview of the book?

H3 Leadership is an application driven, practical leadership playbook that provides a proven process and much needed guidance on how to not only run, but finish well in the leadership race. Readers of this highly practical book will find it chock-full of easy-to-incorporate tips for catalytic leadership and ready to install strategies for living out the transformational habits of a leader.

Breaking down the “what” and “how daily leadership habits and routines that will awaken and transform the way you lead, H3 Leadership is a strategic guide and roadmap that uncovers and clearly defines the 20 key habits that will build your core leadership framework and establish a clear path to long-term sustainable influence. These 20 key Habits are not grand gestures of power, but simple practices that can easily be implemented into everyday life. 20 Key habits all great leaders have in common and essential to all effective leaders.

Based on over a decade of work with Catalyst and the gathered insights of some of America’s most respected leaders from wide ranging fields, H3 Leadership offers 20 key leadership habits that will teach and train you to be a better, stronger and ultimately a more effective leader. A “how to put your leadership into practice” book focused on the habits a leader must form to lead now, and lead well.

True leadership can be complex. I’m trying to keep it simple with the three transformational habits of leadership: be humble, stay hungry, always hustle. These powerful words describe the leader who is willing to work hard, get it done, and make sure it’s not about him or her; the leader who knows that influence is about developing the right habits for success.

Nearly half the actions leaders take every day aren’t choices—they’re habits. That’s why great leaders are intentional about what habits they develop and why. My goal is to show the path to long-term sustainable influence through these three key leadership building blocks.

Leadership is hard work, so leadership must be habitual work.

How is this book different than your first book, The Catalyst Leader?

My first book, The Catalyst Leader, was a big picture, destination book providing essentials for leadership for the next 30 years. A foundation book you might say. If you think of it in terms of an organization, The Catalyst Leader was the corporate and staff handbook.

H3 Leadership is more of a playbook of discipline that will help get you to the finish line. A practical application, daily practice, process, routine and “on the journey” book that can and should immediately transform the way you lead. What leadership looks like on a day-to-day basis. The organization playbook, daily map and gameplan focused on daily practice and discipline that will make your leadership come alive.

The Catalyst Leader provided the key essentials and H3 Leadership provides the key habits. Essentials are what you become, and habits are how you become the leader you desire to be.

H3 describes the “ready” leadership position. I played basketball growing up, and I remember many coaches talking about the ready position in basketball. The posture from which you can dribble, pass, or shoot. I believe that H3 Leadership describes the ready leadership position — the triple threat posture of a properly prepared leader:

  • Humble is internal leadership. Hearts.
  • Hungry is external leadership. Head.
  • Hustle is expression and extension leadership. Hands.

The phrase “humble, hungry, hustle” is my life and leadership mantra. If he had to describe his leadership style in 3 words, these would be it. So much of what I have worked for and want to see in the next generation is a combination of these three transformational habits. Humble, hungry and hustle describes the leader who realizes it’s not about them, is willing to work hard, and ultimately get it done. H3 Leaders know that influence is about developing the right habits for success.

H3 is practical. In the trenches, a bit chaotic, organic and dirty handed leadership. The dirt under your fingernails kind of leadership learned from digging the ditch, focused on the discipline, process, practice and journey of becoming a better leader. The everyday habits, not necessarily the sexy sizzle. The broccoli and vegetables, not necessarily the steak. Not always pretty but hopefully constantly practical. I’ve tried to be practical at every level. Combining experience and wisdom and practical from the trenches. From my story and the story of others. Put your hardhat on and let’s get to work!

You’re very open and honest about how you’ve led, especially Catalyst? Why did you decide to include so much about, frankly, what you feel like you did wrong?

It was important to me to shoot really straight in this book. The very nature of this book required a bit more transparency. But I would also say that I believe the leaders who will have the most influence and impact are the ones who are willing to be vulnerable and talk openly about their struggles and failures.

And that’s a hard thing for a lot of leaders to do. Many times, when we get to a point where other people are listening to us, and we’ve got something to manage––something to lose––we sort of go into the default mode of “Okay, make sure everything looks perfect.”

Today, people crave authenticity. This need has even influenced the way we shop and purchase our products from organizations. Today, customers buy from those we feel are trustworthy. Equally, we want to invest in people and companies that we can trust, not necessarily because they’re well known or largest or leaders in their industry.

Really, the first couple of chapters of the book are about defining and setting this foundation of “Man, you’ve got to be willing to be real with people around you if you want them to follow you.”

So often, leadership, especially self-help leadership and personal growth literature, can feel very pie in the sky––very esoteric. You’re philosophizing constantly.

Readers need a practical example that they can wrap their arms around––actually feel and see and experience the very specific thing that somebody has gone through. It’s one thing to tell others to be willing to share struggles and to talk about failures. It’s another thing to say, “Here’s what I’ve failed at.”

But the leaders I respect the most are the ones who continue to run the race well until the gun goes off, whether that’s because their life is over or they retire. That’s the posture of hungry: the idea that you constantly are learning and getting better. That’s the kind of leader I want to be. I think that’s the kind of leaders we need today.

I think it’s important for people to realize this is an ongoing journey.

Leadership Lessons from Nehemiah

by

This looks like a great new book from Dave Kraft: Learning Leadership from Nehemiah. Here’s a summary:

A leader is a person who has a vision from God, firmly believes in that vision, and doesn’t move toward its fulfill­ment alone. Real leaders possess the ability to get others motivated about this new idea. They know the problem, but they also have a solution in mind. A leader is a per­son who is dissatisfied with the ways things are. He has a burden, a vision, and a call to see something different. He wants to see something change, to build a new fu­ture.

He then begins to communicate what he thinks, and where he wants to go. Nehemiah gives a “vision talk” to the troops. When he finishes they are ready for battle. He is able to motivate and enlist them by sharing that God’s fingerprints are all over this vision, evidenced by the great answers to prayer and the generous offer of the king.

8 Characteristics of GLS Leaders

by

As many of you know, the Global Leadership Summit was last week. It looks like it was another great year, as always.

Here is a great summary of a message Bill Hybels gave on the types of leaders the Global Leadership Summit is seeking to raise up.

I think he gave it before the actual summit to a meeting with their international partners. Nonetheless, it is useful for everyone as it summarizes very well the vision of the entire summit.

The Massive Leadership Opportunity for the Church Today

by

This is a fantastic article by Glenn Brooke at The Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics.

Brooke argues that we were poised on the edge of a new renaissance period, but we can only rise up to this opportunity if we have the right kind of leaders. “This is a massive leadership development opportunity for the church, which is uniquely qualified to develop them.”

The right kind of leaders have a big view of God, sound theology, inclination to harness technology for addressing large global problems, and actually understand the nature of leadership. Above all, they are people of character.

Glenn looks at the main features of our leadership landscape today, and how they compare to the hallmarks of the European Renaissance  of the 14th through 17th centuries. Then he points out that, in light of this, what we need is “a critical mass of entrepreneurial leaders of high character.”

These are people who can let go of the old (even successful) ways of doing things. They have large imaginations and the drive to turn that imagination into something better in the world.

You don’t solve the world’s problems through government programs and handouts, though these have a place.  You improve the lives of millions through businesses which add value and support families. We’ve seen this story repeatedly in history.

He then looks at what leaders must do to meet the challenges of the future, and the leadership opportunity this presents for the church.

It is a truly fantastic post that brings together an understanding of the massive opportunities of our time with a solid and biblical understanding of leadership. Go read the whole thing — and if possible, read it several times so you can truly absorb and reflect on what he is saying.

Who Are Leaders Accountable To?

by

Most leaders would say “absolutely” to any discussion of the importance of accountability in leadership.

However, very often an essential aspect of accountability in leadership is overlooked.

It is easy to think “leaders should have a person that holds them accountable” or that they should “be in an accountability group.” These things have the leader accountable to other leaders.

I don’t dispute the importance of those things, but they are actually missing the most important element of accountability for a leader. And that dimension is the leader being accountable to those they lead. 

That is what keeps leadership from becoming a dictatorship. If the leader is not accountable to the people they are leading, then there is no true back-and-forth. Followers’ ideas and hopes are always only suggestions, with no real authority. This, by definition, creates two classes of people.

Instead, the biblical view is that while there is a place for differences in functional authority, these differences are counterbalanced by a true two-way street of accountability between the followers and leaders.

This doesn’t mean that every decision a leader makes needs to be approved by the followers. Rather, we see good examples of what this looks like especially in two areas.

First, democracy. The president is ultimately elected by the people, and has to be re-elected by the people. If he is not governing properly, they therefore have the ultimate power to remove him by not re-electing him. That is how the president is kept accountable to the people.

Second, congregational church government. Congregationalism can certainly be applied in ways that constrict the proper functioning of leadership. But at its essence, it means that the church members are ultimately responsible for what their church becomes, and the pastors and elders are accountable to the members — not simply themselves or a higher governing board.

This creates a cycle of accountability and creates checks and balances. And it enables the followers to take ownership and play a vital part, which is essential for growth.

The necessity of leaders being accountable to those that they lead follows from the fact that all people are in the image of God and equal. Because all people are equal, no person can lord it over another. Which is the same as saying, anyone in a position of leadership is accountable to those that they lead. Nothing else reflects that equality.

We could ask, “where is this taught in Scripture?” Consider Jesus’ statement in Matthew 20:27 where, in teaching about Christian leadership, he says “whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” A slave is accountable to their master to carry out their priorities. Since leaders are to see themselves as slaves of those that they lead, then, that means that leaders are to see themselves as accountable to those whom they are leading. That is part of what it means to see yourself as the “slave” of others — in your leadership, you are accountable to them as to whether you are leading well and carrying out the priorities of the mission.

The actual process of this accountability can take many possible forms. But leaders seeing themselves not as lords over those they lead, but as their servants who are therefore accountable to them is central to the nature of true and humble Christian leadership.

A Common Misapplication of the Doctrine of Sin in Christian Leadership

by

Over the last few years, I’ve seen people more and more say things like “since we are all sinners, we can’t trust ourselves and we need to rely on the pastors and elders of our local churches to guide us.”

That sounds spiritual. But it represents a very significant misunderstanding.

I know that can sound radical. So, first off, let me clarify what I don’t mean. I don’t mean that counsel is a bad thing, or that the local church has no role to play in giving good counsel. “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to [good] advice” (Proverbs 12:15).

The problem with this statement is that it is reversing the way the doctrine of sin is supposed to be applied in relation to the role of leaders.

The implications of the doctrine of sin for decision making are not first about church members and everyday people needing the help of leaders to guide their lives. Centuries of human history in general and church history in particular bear out that making that the focus is actually a recipe for tyranny.

Further, it almost assumes that people are not competent to lead their own lives and fails to recognize that no human being has ultimate authority over us. “Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls” (Romans 14:4). This applies to church leaders as well as everyone else: no one is to insert themselves between any Christian and the Lord. Each person is directly accountable to Jesus Christ alone. (This is a standard Reformed doctrine, and is discussed in a very helpful way in Paul Helm’s short book The Callings; it is also the basis on which Martin Luther was able to stand up to the corruption of his day in the church.)

Instead, the first implication the doctrine of sin has in relation to the role of leaders in the church (and anywhere else) is that leadership needs to be held accountable and have checks and balances.

In other words, of course we are all sinners — and we need to remember that this applies to leaders also. Further, sin is most easily given legs to cause harm when it is institutionalized through positional authority.

For that reason, the first and most important implication for the doctrine of sin for how we lead our lives does not have to do with followers needing church leaders to help guide their lives. It has first of all to do with leaders having checks and balances and recognizing that they are accountable to the people they lead. This is the only way to prevent abuse of power. And note that the issue is not the virtue or intentions of the leaders; good leaders need this just as much as leaders of poor character (who, of course, shouldn’t be leading anyway).

Centuries of history bear this out, and the lessons have been encapsulated in the rise of democracy and the founding of our nation. The greatest danger arising from universal sin is not that the everyday people will cause harm, but that those in positions of formal authority will misuse that authority, thereby causing even greater harm to a much larger number of people.

The problem, then, with the quote at the start of this post is that it is leaving this out. Or, perhaps more accurately, it is failing to recognize that this truth about leaders being accountable to those they lead is what needs to be given pre-eminence in our thinking when we consider the doctrine of sin and its relationship to the role of leaders. That is, our first thought should not be “we are sinners, therefore we need the help of leaders,” but rather “leaders are sinners, and therefore they need to be accountable to the people and their power needs to have checks and balances.”

A true leader welcomes this mindset, because he or she does not see himself as above the people they are leading (cf. Deuteronomy 17:20) but rather as in fact beneath them as their servant (Matthew 20:27; 23:11-12).

If you don’t feel that you can handle that, then I would say you are not qualified to lead.

With that mindset in place, and only with that mindset in place, are we then in a position to say “OK, now recognizing that all of us are fallible, let’s all of us also seek input and counsel, as is relevant and natural, from those in positions of formal leadership in our churches.”

And while doing so, we also need to recognize that counsel from anyone, including church leaders, only must be followed when it is simply a restatement of what the Scriptures command. Anything that goes beyond that may be good advice, but it is never an obligation for a person. To treat it as an obligation is equivalent to adding to the word of God — which is not looked upon as a small thing in the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 4:2; etc.).

The 7 Characteristics of Servant Leadership

by

I think it is so important for the church to understand the real meaning of servant leadership. So important. 

“But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’ (Matthew 20:25-28).”

“‘But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted'” (Matthew 23:8-12).

A servant leader:

  1. Puts the needs of the followers first — not themselves or the preservation of their own power. (This, counterintuitively, results in more influence.)
  2. Transfers as much authority as possible to the followers, enabling them to make their own decisions in as many areas as is possible. Other words for this are empowerment and decentralization. These are not just popular buzzwords. They are essential concepts for the proper functioning of society and any organization.
  3. Seeks the growth of their followers to their maximum potential. This is another reason that top-down oriented leadership is not right or helpful: it stunts the growth of followers by making most of their decisions for them.
  4. Recognizes that they are accountable to those they lead. This is an implication of the equality of all people. Without this accountability, leaders are by definition in a special “higher class” than the followers, which is unbiblical, wrong, and prideful at its very root. We see a very good, albeit imperfect, example of this in modern democracy. The leaders in government are ultimately accountable to the people, and the best governmental leaders see themselves as public servants in the fullest sense.
  5. Seeks to lead chiefly through influence and persuasion, not authority or coercion (threat of punishment or bad consequences for not doing what the leader wants). Note that this requires that the servant leader read and study, for their is no other way to have the knowledge needed to operate according to persuasion. Often when people lead by coercion, they are taking the easy way and trying to make up for the fact that they lack true knowledge, and thus real influence.
  6. Recognizes that their authority is limited. No individual ever has total authority over another. That is by definition a form of dictatorship, even if the “leader” who thinks he has such authority has good intent. This, again, stems from the fact that we are all in the image of God and thus ontologically equal. Ontological equality does not necessarily negate functional differences, but it must be reflected in the way those functional differences operate (such as through accountability to the led, principle 4, and recognizing the limited scope of authority, this principle).
  7. Has a concern for the poor and marginalized. Concern for the poor is a fundamental biblical responsibility, and the servant leader recognizes that this is not to be forgotten in the way they go about anything, including the way they lead.

20 Characteristics of an All-In Leader

by

Excellent stuff from Brad Lomenick:

Are you a leader who is “ALL IN?”

I want leaders on my team who are “all in.” Coaches want players who are “all in” on their teams. Every organization out there wants employees and team members who are “all in.”

Being ALL IN as a leader means:

1. You don’t constantly look at the clock, and you’re not punching a time card. Your role is not defined by 9 – 5.

2. You get it done no matter how long it takes. You are “managerless,” meaning no one else has to worry about whether you are getting it done.

3. You realize you are part of something bigger than yourself, and humbly accomplish the goals because of a larger motivation than just you.

4. Giving just the “minimum” amount of effort required to get by without “getting in trouble” doesn’t even cross your mind.

5. Your hard work and excellence is done with pure motives. You are not worried about climbing the ladder or impressing anyone.

Read the whole thing.