The Five People You Need as a Leader

Leadership is lonely, the say. That is true to a real extent. Few understand the weight of responsibility that comes with leadership, or the shifts in relationship that can bring isolation and distance. But to say leadership is a lonely position does not mean one can do it alone. Even the most differentiated leaders need to be meaningfully connected to others in the work system, and, to a personal support system. Ask most leaders for the secret of their success and they'll likely tell you two things: "I surround myself with the best people," and "I have invested in a long-term peer support system."

When one is in a position of leadership one's network of relationships both expands and narrows. You'll be connected to a wider number and variety of people in the organization to some extent and in several capacities. At the same time you'll narrow the scope of your direct charges, your "inner circle" of second-chair leaders and associate staff. In other words, you need to be present to all but accessible to only a few. In the mix of those networks there are five people every leader needs to help her or him be more effective. 

You may discover these five people within your organization as work colleagues. Others may exist outside of the job environment. Regardless, they each will contribute something important to your success as a leader. 

1. The Encourager. Whether friend, second chair, spouse, deacon, or Mom, this is the person in your life, sometimes the ONE person, who says "You can do this." And because he or she genuinely believes it, you'll believe it too.  This may also be the person that helps you give yourself permission for taking a day off, or allowing yourself a "mental health day." Sometimes, this is merely the person who, regardless of circumstance, just likes you, no matter what. 

2. The Antagonist. While irksome, every leader needs an antagonist. Iron sharpens iron, and leaders may grow dull without the challenge antagonists provide. Antagonistic people may be reactive, but they are not necessarily unintelligent. If you can listen to their arguments and perspectives past the grating annoyance, they can provide correctives to your blind spots. Believe it or not, antagonists can be a resource to a leader, as long as they don't tip over into sabotage. 

3. The Skeptic. Most leaders are, by necessity and character, optimists. They likely would not have taken the job if they didn't believe in possibilities, potential, and ultimate positive outcomes. This is what helps leadership "sell" the vision that gathers others around a shared value and the tasks that make things happen. But an overly-optimistic leader with Pollyanna rose-tinted glasses does not serve an organization well. Skeptics can help you curb your enthusiasm in those times when operating out of realism is a necessity. You don't have to buy into a skeptic's perspective, but he or she can provide a balance to our tendencies for wishful thinking, self-referencing, and denial. 

4. The Lieutenant. God bless this type! Most leaders would be lost without them, and most organizations would fail to make progress without their energy, skills, and single-minded drive. The Lieutenant in the organization is the one who delivers on the dreams. She's the one who makes it happen. He or she is your "Number One." Give them a vision and they'll find the ways to make it a reality. Most of the time, the best thing a leader can do is get out of their way and let them do what needs to be done in the way THEY think best. 

5. The Sage. The best leaders tend to be smart, but none are omniscient. In fact, those who seek to be ("know-it-alls") very quickly cease to be effective as leaders. In leadership, a little bit of humility goes a long way. Yes, your staff and your constituents want, perhaps need, to believe you are smart and know what you are doing. But, the reality is that the challenges of leadership are more about knowing how to function than knowing answers. Effective leaders know there's a difference between expertise and wisdom. This is the value of the mentor, consultant, or advisor in the life of a leader. The Sage helps the leader with three critical practices: perspective, discernment, and self-understanding. 

Do you have these five people in your life? Where are they in your support networks--at the job or outside of work? Which do you need to cultivate to complete this company of the five people you need as a leader?

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Ministry (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.

Money and What it Represents Part 2: Approaching Stewardship Education As A Spiritual Issue

I am preparing for an online course on money and ministry to be taught in the fall with author Margaret Marcuson. Money, and what it represents is a complex issue in congregations. As an educator I'm interested in how people acquire what they learn, including perspectives, values, and habits. We know that certain things need to be learned in particular ways. As such I'm intrigued how often we teach things the wrong way, or, simply teach the wrong things. On the topic of money and stewardship, this seems to be especially true.

Stewardship is about a Christian’s personal, volitional response to God's call to discipleship as part of the Body of Christ. As such, stewardship is primarily a value (an individual, but also a corporate one), a practice (behavior) only secondly, and a concept or belief, thirdly. Given that framework, most congregations seem to tend to “teach” it backward and incompletely. Too often we attempt to teach Christian stewardship by using the teaching-by-telling approach and leaving it at that, never touching on the affective and the volitional and failing to facilitate the practice. Then, we naively expect that change will happen in the life of our members related to stewardship.

Stewardship is a Spiritual Issue

Stewardship is a spiritual issue, and it must be addressed like every other spiritual issue in the life of the believer. The issue is not to TELL people that they need to give 10% of their money to the church, rather, it is to help people arrive at a conviction of value by engaging them in the dialogue of theological reflection by asking, "Share with me, how are you responding to God in your stewardship of life?"

Our failure to help our members learn—--really learn-—-stewardship has had tragic results. Our unfortunate approach to teaching stewardship in the lives of our members means that we’ve done a great disservice to them over the years by being ineffective about helping them address the stewardship dimension of discipleship (except when it's time to ask for money for the church budget we tend to not even talk about it. And all evidence is that we’ve failed even there, since most members give only 2.3% of their income to the church).3 I suspect that we, the church leaders—pastors, teachers, deacons—have been irresponsible in helping our members in this, probably because we ourselves have not dealt with our own issues related to money.

In most of our churches, a significant number of our members are under the oppressive burden of debt, so much so that they are unable to respond in responsible stewardship to God. I suspect they resent us for it, because we've been of no help whatsoever to them in dealing with financial stewardship while making them feel guilty about not giving more money to the church. We've not been prophetic about challenging the values of the world our members have embraced and the myths of materialism the world teaches. So when we once or twice a year make our pitch for money, they can’t hear it, at least, they don't hear it theologically. And then there are the church members who have bought into the values of the world's materialism: how many people in your congregation spend more on feeding and caring for their pets than they do giving to the hunger offerings at church? How many spend more monthly on their cable TV and Internet service bill than they do to missions? How many church members spend more money on their annual vacation than they do giving money to help the homeless?

It's About Values

The issue of stewardship is complex because it less about the money and more about values. I think that we ought to address the issue of stewardship in the same way we address issues about faith development and discipleship: by taking into account developmental life stages and cycles. Different epochs in life require different messages about one’s response about stewardship of life. As a specific example: mid-life calls for a stewardship of generativity (learning to face the limitation of means and beginning to invest in the next generation. In effect, learning how to give your life away.). But that is not the case for adolescents and young adults whose life stage work appropriately includes acquiring and building. And how unfair, and nonsensical to its audience, are messages about stewardship of money to young children—who have no money and no cognitive concept of percentages or of proportional giving? And end-of-life stages, and stages of senescence, call for different ethical and theological decisions about stewardship. Only through dialogical engagement can people deal with these issues authentically in their lives. I suspect we make our messages of stewardship ineffective when we assume that it is the same for everyone at the same time, and we attempt to teach everyone the same way.

In terms of educational programming, not everything is for everybody at the same time. I think we confuse and make people feel uselessly guilty when we send the message that, regardless of their life stage, their family life cycle stage, and their particular life situation, they are supposed to function and respond like "everyone else." But rarely are they given the opportunity for learning through dialogue that leads to application, and therefore, I suspect most choose to make no legitimate response at all to God’s call in this area of their lives. Stewardship is as much a value and a choice as it is a concept and a practice. Unless we address all four domains of learning--knowledge, affect, behavior, and volition---our members will never “learn” stewardship.

Adapted from: How to Be the Best Christian Study Group Leader, by Israel Galindo (Judson Press)

To learn more about the course Money and Your Ministry, check out the Center for Lifelong Learning. Join us!

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Ministry (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.

Money and What it Represents. Part 1

I am preparing for an online course on money and ministry to be taught in the fall with author Margaret Marcuson. Money, and what it represents is a complex issue in congregations. The course will examine money and ministry from a systems theory frame of reference. From that orientation, some systems concepts that can help in understanding what's going on are:

• Money represents something to people. Usually, it's emotional.
• Money often serves a function. Giving money represents a function of emotions, drives, or values.
• Since money is a complex emotional issue, it's helpful to never question motives, but observe function
• Stewardship is a spiritual-emotional issue and needs to be approached and understood as such.

Some time ago a colleague in ministry called to share good news, and, a concern. He was new to the church, only eight months into his new ministry. A relatively new member to the church (she had joined two years prior) had expressed how much she appreciated his ministry and the excitement he was bringing to the church. She gave him an envelope with a check in the amount of $5,000.00, "to be used any way you want for your ministry." My colleague was elated with the affirmation and the gift, but he felt a bit stuck, also. He was seeking counsel about why he felt conflicted about the gift.

When a new (recent) member to a congregation gives a $5,000.00 gift, red flags go up for me. I won't question motive, but I tend to ask questions about emotional functioning. A very FEW people can give large sums of money to a church with no emotional strings attached--but most people cannot, in my experience. Since a congregation is an emotional system--and since small congregations mimic "family" emotional systems--it is naive to think that money (and what it represents by way of its function) does not matter in terms of the impact on the function of the system.

In the case of a large donation from a new member, we may ask, for example:

• Is this person overfunctioning for the congregation?
• Is this person dealing with some issues in his or her life that has promted the gift? Why now?
• Does this person's (immediate) family know he or she is giving this gift? What is this persons relationship with the church? With the pastor?
• Did the pastor or staff get the gift or was it given to "the church" through usual giving channels?
• How does the giving of the major gift relate to patterns in the donor's life? In the church? In the pastor's family of origin?
• Are there guidelines in place (rules or policies) about "major gifts"? Were they followed?
• Does this action put you in a triangulated relationship?
• Were there "strings" attached to the gift? Overt or implied? Expectations? Subtle messages?
• Is the gift a "designated gift" for a ministry, staff person, pet program, pet issue that by-passes the regular budget? Is this gift given in stead or in lieu of regular offering and pledge giving?
• What are the systemic consequences to the congregation beyond convenience and financial relief?
• Given the donor's life circumstance, is this a "responsible" act? Is it appropriate?
• Given the pattern of giving and practice of stewardship of the congregation as a whole, is receiving the gift a responsible act? Is it appropriate?
• Will accepting this gift change or shift the relationship with the donor?

Events like my friend's experience are great opportunities to do some stewardship education with the church leadership. At least for pastoral leaders who are willing to put the issues on the table and challenge the church about its responsible response to congregational stewardship. Most pastors seem to avoid dealing with it and then wonder why their congregational members are poor stewards. Go figure.

NEXT: Money and What it Represents: Stewardship Education As A Spiritual Issue

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Ministry (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.

Hacks and Professionals: Which are you?

In his book, A Failure of Nerve, Edwin Friedman wrote about the tendency of ineffective leaders that exhibit the tendency to seek the “quick fix” and who obsess over methods, techniques, and successful programs. This, in contrast to effective leaders who can engage in the hard work of leadership that focuses on bringing the kind of challenge to a system which leads to growth. He said, "The difference between a professional and a hack is not in their degree or training. Both may do what they do with polish; but the hack is not transformed by his experience." (A Failure of Nerve, p. 88).

I think that’s a challenging word to congregational leaders. It speaks to the dependency of so many leaders on fads and packaged programs that provide the promise of the quick fix for quelling the anxious voices who want to be entertained rather than challenged, who want to have “the answer” that satisfies rather than struggle with the questions that challenge, and, who cater to the whining voices of those who cannot tolerate being "bored" by engaging in the very practices and disciplines that lead to growth through the engagement of mind and affections.

The biggest liability for any system whose leader provides the quick fix is that it removes responsibility, denies accountability, and caters to the most anxious and dependent in the system. In the end these actions are inimical to the very processes and experiences that foster growth. In such a system there will never be growth and development toward maturity.

Being Transformed by Our Experience

For ministers and congregational leaders, a disciplined and sustained engagement in the practices of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-practice is what makes a difference in moving from novice to wisdom (or in Friedman's terms, from hack to professional). They guard leaders from being perpetually" blown here and there by every wind of teaching" and becoming distracted from the seemingly unrelated series of experiences day in and week out. Mature leaders are transformed by their experiences as a product of intentional reflection for meaning-making. They are lifelong learners who are inner directed, agents of their own learning, and who know that meaningful learning is more about the cultivation of insight than it is the acquisition of other people's knowledge.

Friedman’s words certainly challenge the congregational leader's own lack of personal and professional growth. I often tell search committees to value personal maturity over “experience.” Some people have years of “experience” but seem to have learned little from it.

Similarly, I witness too many resident congregational educators who seem to spend their careers running a Sunday School or other programs as the end-all and be-all to what constitutes Christian education. Too many seem to not have been transformed by the very discipline they are engaged in: education. For example, too few congregational educators seem able to articulate a well-defined philosophy of education that informs the basic educational questions:

• What constitutes learning?
• To what end are we educating?
• What is the nature and role of the teacher?
• What is the nature and role of the learner?
• What criteria do we use to discern what is worth learning from what is trivia?
• What does it mean to educate in faith?
• How do people actually learn, and therefore, how should we teach them?

Resources and Practices

Here are some resources for becoming a reflective practitioner:

• Kathleen McAlpin, Ministry that Transforms.
• Howard W. Stone, How to Think Theologically
• Donald Schon, The Reflective Practitioner
• Leadership in Ministry Workshops.
• Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice.

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Ministry (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.

When it's not about you, but it involves you

Insightful and self-aware leaders get to the point of understanding that some things that go on in the system are not about them. In time, and with work, they may even be able to not take reactivity from others personally, even when they come in the form of a personal attack. The dilemma for the leader, however, is the reality that while it may not be "about me," the mere fact that the leader is in the position of leadership in the system means that at some level, and to some extent, the issue will involve him or her.  

10 leadership Commandments for Clergy

There is no end to spin offs and parodies on The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). I thought I'd add to the mix by offering 10 Leadership Commandments for Clergy from a systems theory point of view. Here is my playful list. What would be yours? 

1. Thou shalt not make thyself dependent on the Church for your salvation, for she is not your God.
2. Thou shalt cultivate your relationship with your family of origin, for it is your once and future hope.
3. Thou shalt not sacrifice your family and its members for the sake of ministry, for they are your first ministry.
4. Thou shalt not accommodate to weakness, neither in yourself or in others. For fear, timidity, insecurity, and neediness are a lack of faith.
5. Thou shalt not create the congregation in your image, for that is willfulness and a form of idolatry.
6. Thou shalt practice courage and persistence of vision in the face of opposition, for a system needs its leader.
7. Thou shalt invest in other people's growth---your staff, your employees, your congregational members--for that is an aid to differentiation.
8. Thou shalt master triangles, for they shall be with you till the end of time.
9. Thou shalt practice responsible stewardship of your calling. Invest in your own growth and development: personal, spiritual, emotional, physical, mental, and professional, for a church can only be as healthy as its leader.
10. Thou shalt embrace imagination and adventure, for they will get you farther along on the journey. 

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean, Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. Galindo serves on the Advisory Committee of the Wabash Center for Teaching in Theology and Religion and is available as consultant through the Center in the areas of curriculum development and assessment, leadership, and teaching and learning in theological education. In the fall of 2014 the Center for Lifelong Learning will offer the Leadership in Ministry Workshops, a clergy leadership development program from a Bowen Systems Theory framework. Check the Center's listing for more details.

Leading in an Anxious System: What is a leader to do?

Persons who step up to leadership tend to be motivated, smart, and sincere in their desire for success, for themselves and for the organization. Some leaders are go-getters who want to fix a system (and the people in it). They want to create a successful organization and will take on the challenge of "changing the system." When they've had success in a previous context they will tend to enter a challenging dysfunctional system with the confidence that they will be able to duplicate the successes made in one context in another. The liability here, of course, is the tendency to focus leadership on the personality of the leader and failing to take into account the reality that (1) not all systems are created equal, and (2) leadership is as much a function of the system as it is of the individual designated "leader" in the system. 

The corrective to the perils of a personality-focused leadership is the appreciation that leadership is always contextual, and, context matters a lot. Not all systems are alike, though systems tend to be "of a kind." A biological family system is not the same as a congregational relationship system, even if the church is made up of families. A for-profit business is not the same as a non-profit organization, even when both provide the same service. A theological school is not a church community, even though both share similar beliefs and practices. Effective leaders understand that the function of leadership is as much (if not more) a product of the system than of the personality of the leader in the system. Therefore, leaders must understand the context and type of system they are in. 

Two recent conversations with highly motivated but frustrated leaders underscored the importance of understanding one's system. Both are smart, experienced, and confident leaders. Both have had successes at former contexts in similar systems (one a non-profit organization and one in an congregational context). But both are very frustrated at the slow pace of change they are making helping their organizations succeed. Both express a feeling of being stuck and facing problems they are not able to "fix" for the first time. One said, "It feels like pushing against Jello around here." The other said, "At this point I'd settle for us just being a healthier place." 

These leaders were facing the particular challenge of trying to lead chronically anxious systems. These types of systems are structured with chronic anxiety as an integral part of their homeostasis and patterns of emotional process. They come about when their structure: (1) makes someone in the system responsible for someone else's functioning, (2) has triangles as a patterned way for emotional processes, and (3) is designed so as to inhibit the effectiveness of the leader. At best, these systems lack the internal resources to improves, and, at worst, they are highly resistant to change and tend to have a perverse devotion to their dysfunction. Any leader with Messianic leanings will become prone to burnout in such systems. 

Does this mean these leaders should just give up on their systems? No, I still think the presence of a mature and effective leader remains one of the most significant factors in helping a system function better, if not realize success. But it can help to adjust one's assumptions, perspectives, and functioning as leader in an chronically anxious system stuck in its dysfunction. The challenge for leaders in this context is to adjust their leadership functioning without accommodating to the system. 

In what ways might high-performing leaders adjust their perspective, expectations and functioning in a chronically anxious system? Here are some ways: 

Work at containing the toxins in the system to empower the strengths in the system. Toxic elements include those who sabotage efforts, become entrenched, gossip, are willful, act irresponsibly or act as terrorists in the system. These persons impede progress and keep the system stuck by holding others emotionally hostage, being a distraction, or actively undermine the efforts of others in the system. In chronically anxious systems that lack capacity for dealing with these persons, it is the leader who must provide appropriate intervention. 

Invest in and release the high performers. As leaders contain the toxins in the system they will be able to release and empower the high performers in the system. Dealing with the toxic members of the system takes a lot of energy, but leaders should make it appear that they are investing more time and attention to the healthy and most motivated persons in the system. Give them the support and resources they need and soon they'll learn to take their cues from you, the leader, rather than from the naysayers and chicken-littles in the system. 

Inculcate accountability. Chronically anxious systems tend to have developed a pattern of not holding persons accountable. This enables underfunctioners and underperformers to "set the tone" for the work ethic in the system. Leaders in this kind of system must address these unprofessional and irresponsible behaviors. 

Be responsible for your office and your functioning. Balance with the above, leaders in dysfunctional systems do better in focusing on taking responsibility for their own functioning and responsibilities while not making themselves responsible for other people's functioning. It sounds paradoxical, but it appears universally true that to the extent a leader can do this, the system functions better. 

Give up expectations of outcomes. "A leader can only accomplish what the system allows," claimed Edwin Friedman. Chronically anxious systems with high levels of dysfunction tend to lack the internal capacity to attain goals, realize vision and live into the mission of the organization. A leader who inflicts lofty goals and specific outcomes on this system is setting up him or herself, and the system, for disappointment and frustration. It is likely these systems need to focus on being "better" before they are able to focus on doing and producing "more." However, while the leader will do well to lower his or her personal expectations, it is appropriate to demand more of the system--the best people in the system will step up.  

Gain clarity about your goals and your tenure in office. What do YOU want to accomplish in your tenure as a leader is a better orientation than what you want the system to accomplish. Remember that it is willfulness that brings out the toxicity in a system. Focus on your goals as a leader over any goals for the system. 

Gain clarity about the function you serve in the system (the one you desire and the ones the system assigns to you). Entrenched and systems with rigidity in their emotional process tend to assign roles and functions to individuals in the system. Double so for leaders in chronically anxious systems. The roles, with accompanying functions are varied: rescuer, fixer, scapegoat, etc. Whether you like it or not, a chronically anxious system will assign you the role it expects of its leader based on rigidly patterned relationship structures. Leaders in these systems do not have to accept those roles and expectations, but should not be surprised about how they will continue to haunt them as long as they remain in the position or leader. 

Build a narrative for success (vision, identity, values). Every system needs and craves direction from its leader; they want that "vision thing." Chronically anxious and dysfunctional systems tend to build a narrative of victimization and defeat over time. Leaders can "re-wire" the self perception and outlook of a system by creating a new narrative for the system. This can be done in many ways, from re-interpreting past crises, nodal events, and critical instances, to providing a narrative for the future of the system. Effective leaders tend to not underestimate the function of the leader as resident storyteller and interpreter of the systems' narrative because they know it is one way to shape its identity.

Leadership is a product of a system, more so than a function of one individual's personality, skills, or competence. As such, leaders do well to understand the nature of the system they lead and the context in which it resides. In this way, leaders can move toward being more effective by providing the leadership function the system actually needs through adaptation rather than accommodation. 

Israel Galindo is Associate Dean for Lifelong Learning at the Columbia Theological Seminary. Formerly, he was Dean at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He is the author of the bestseller, The Hidden Lives of Congregations (Alban), Perspectives on Congregational Leadership (Educational Consultants), and A Family Genogram Workbook (Educational Consultants), with Elaine Boomer and Don Reagan. Galindo contributes to the Wabash Center's blog for theological school deans.