Menu

Leadership Myth Busting

leader

The Myth of the Charismatic Leader

, 0

by Christian Muntean

Sometimes leaders ask me how to develop pizzazz.

I find that humorous because, at no point, have I ever been described as “pizzazzy.” One of my mentors likes to remind me that I’m “low energy.” He’d like me to work on my pizzazz.

I understand the pizzazz attraction. (I’m referring to charisma – if my word threw you.) We’ve all been in rooms where someone walks in and immediately grabs and holds everyone’s attention. They’ve got “it” as they say in Hollywood.

So, I work on my pizzazz skills. It’s easier to be “it” than “not it.” Also, I think it’s good to keep working on things and improving. But here’s the thing: I built success without stacks of pizzazz. Being steady, objective, and unflappable are valuable traits.

So, while a magnetic charisma is handy – it isn’t necessary.

You don’t need charisma to be a fantastically effective leader

If you naturally burst with charisma, good for you. I mean that. Use it. It will definitely make some things much easier. If you don’t have it, it won’t hurt to spice things up a bit.

But you don’t have to be charismatic. Charismatic leaders have their unique challenges.

Because I have more nerd in me than charisma – I like to wander through the research on topics. Here are the facts about charisma:

Charisma doesn’t guarantee effectiveness:

It’s a good ingredient to have. However organizational success requires more. And you can be successful without it. So, it’s like icing on the cake. Charisma is a ‘nice to have’ – not necessary. Numerous studies have found that charisma is not a reliable predictor of a leader’s performance or a company’s profitability.[1][4]

Other qualities matter much more:

Jim Collins highlighted this in his book Good to Great. Leaders of companies that sustainably outperform both their competition and the market were not described as charismatic. They largely escaped being recognized as ‘celebrity leaders’. Attitudes like humility and a passion to help the whole organization win were what rose to the top. Competencies like strategic thinking, decision-making, and motivating others have, elsewhere, been found to be more important than charisma.[4][5][6]

People confuse charisma with impact:

Followers tend to attribute extraordinary qualities to leaders they perceive as charismatic, even when the leader’s actual impact is negligible. This ‘rose-coloured glasses’ / infatuated view of some leaders leads to an overemphasis on charisma. Leaders with high charisma, who are otherwise ineffective, can still be perceived to be effective. This is important to keep in mind when considering advancement or succession. Don’t get blinded by a charismatic leader’s beauty – so to speak.[2]

Charismatic leaders struggle to build commitment:

What is easily won is easily lost. Charismatic leaders can wow an audience with their visionary abilities. Often they easily inspire a superficial level of commitment. But that commitment tends to be unstable over time. I used the word ‘infatuation’ earlier. The result is a tendency for these leaders to keep the infatuation going – by doing ‘charismatic’ things to attempt to renew their admirer’s commitment. Another word for this can be drama. Nothing like a white knight swooping in to save everyone from a disaster (that, too often, they allowed or created.) [3]

Charismatic leaders can lean on toxic behaviours:

Charismatic leaders who haven’t built a robust set of leadership skills and emotional maturity can tend to just lean in on their charisma. This can cause them to surround themselves with people who enable toxic behaviours like narcissism, authoritarianism, and unethical conduct. This is especially true if these leaders face minimal accountability.[1][5]

Research indicates that effective leadership stems from competencies rather than charisma alone.

But I am a charismatic leader. What do I do?

  1. Develop genuine character and integrity. Cultivate strong moral principles, cultivate authenticity, and practice humility.
  2. Place yourself in a position of accountability. Specifically with people who aren’t ‘wowed’ by you. If this isn’t at work, find a mentor, a coach, or a peer group of caring but unimpressed people whom you respect.
  3. Build wisdom, knowledge, and competence. Develop actual expertise, strategic thinking abilities, and decision-making skills.
  4. Deliver meaningful results and impact. Follow through and produce positive outcomes that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.
  5. Build trust through compassion and consideration of others. Balance your confidence with humility, empathy, and concern for the interests of others.
  6. Engage in continual self-improvement and learning from mistakes. Build the self-awareness to identify areas for growth, learn from failures, and evolve your leadership.

Conclusion

Effective leadership doesn’t require charisma. It requires character and competency. Dependence on charisma can create real problems for leaders. But charisma, if combined with character and competency is a killer combo. (Check out that alliteration!)

I am grateful to Christian for allowing us to reproduce this post as part of our Leadership Myth-Busting series. See https://www.christianmuntean.com/the-myth-of-the-charismatic-leader/ for the original post and more resources on Christian’s website.

Christian Muntean has helped hundreds of businesses rapidly grow, increase profitability, and expand impact. He primarily works with entrepreneurial business leaders who are scaling their businesses or preparing for exit or succession. He partners with owners, boards, and executive teams as they make game-changing decisions.

Citations:

[1]https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4321&context=gradschool_dissertations

[2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10656777/

[3]https://theloop.ecpr.eu/myth-all-populist-leaders-are-charismatic/

[4]https://www.corporatelearningnetwork.com/leadership/columns/charismatic-leadership-much-ado-about-nothing

[5]https://hbr.org/2022/11/the-myth-of-the-brilliant-charismatic-leader

[6]https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/76865

462336-PHX68C-967

Leadership Myth-Busting #10: Charisma… the essential quality of “born leaders”

0

We’ve all been there… wowed by a leader who exudes charisma. There is something about their magnetic personality that demands attention. They walk into a room and their presence is felt – even before they say anything. For many people, charisma is a quality that is synonymous with being a “born leader”. But, is this a myth? Clearly, some people have a more charismatic personality than others. However, do people with charisma automatically make good leaders?

A quick google search can inform you that charisma is defined as compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others. Often this devotion is given unquestioningly. We may say there is an aura about a particular person. But there can be a dark side to charisma. It can disguise character flaws and, if left unchecked, leave followers vulnerable to being manipulated and even abused by their leader.

Michael Green writes,

Charisma without character is a catastrophe.

Andy Hawthorne goes further:

You’d have thought we’d have learned by now that giftedness doesn’t equal godliness, and that charisma doesn’t always equal character. It’s a lot easier to say the right stuff than to live the right life.

The problem with charisma is that it can catapult someone into a position of leadership before their character has been developed. This can be dangerous for both the individual and the organisation they lead. When we accelerate leaders in this way, we can be in danger of bypassing essential processes in a leader’s development. Robert Clinton in his excellent book, The Making of a Leader states:

Mature ministry flows from a mature character, formed in the graduate school of life.

I am not saying that people with charisma are automatically bad or disqualified from leadership. Clearly not! But I do believe that we often don’t follow due process with someone who has is naturally outgoing and affable in the same way that we might with someone who is more introverted or shy.

I believe the Bible teaches that leadership is a gift entrusted to people by God (e.g. see Romans 12:8). Consider Moses. A runaway “failure” who struggled to speak. Or David. Overlooked by his family – not even considered a potential leader. And the disciples of Jesus, a rag-tag mish-mash of personalities and experience. Biblical leadership is not anyone’s birthright. Rather, an essential quality of all leaders is not charisma, but humility. Heidi Baker states,

There is only one direction in ministry: lower still.

As I’m writing this, I’m thinking of some leaders who have played a huge role in my own life. Some are naturally charismatic. But many aren’t. In fact, those that have had a lasting impact are those that demonstrated qualities that don’t always make the headlines in leadership literature. They were consistent, reliable, steady, faithful and wise. These are characteristics they developed in the school of hard knocks. I encourage you to seek out such leaders who can help you navigate the challenges of life and leadership.

*Image by Freepik

Gold Chess on chess board game for business metaphor leadership

Leadership Myth-Busting #9: The end justifies the means

, , , 0

In this series of articles I seek to critique various myths of leadership that seem to be the prevailing attitude and approach of many leaders in the 21st century. The standard against which they are critiqued is the example of servant leadership as exhibited by Jesus Christ.

For many leaders, leadership is all about the results. CEOs are judged by the bottom line; pastors by bums on seats, and sports coaches by the last score-line. The problem with the success-based paradigm of leadership (an article for another day), is that the pressure to perform can be the precursor to compromise. If we are purely judged by our results, then leaders can rightly assert that the end justifies the means.

Many of us who play sports have experienced the temptation to cheat a little in order to get an advantage. Go on, admit it. On the football pitch you may have pulled someone’s shirt. Or on the tennis court you called a ball out when you know it clipped the line. In golf you may have been economical with the truth as you tot up your shots on the scorecard.

Is it really wrong? Or is it only wrong if you get caught?

You may argue these things are petty and part of sport… it’s just gamesmanship. Perhaps you’re right. But isn’t it the win-at-all-costs mentality that leads sportsmen and women towards more serious infringements like ball-tampering, brown envelopes before a game and performance enhancing drugs? When does gamesmanship become something more sinister?

I have a friend in the US who has written extensively on a Christ-centred ethic of participation in sport. He says of sports people who deliberately break the rules in order to gain an advantage that:

“In essence they also base their morality on humanistic pragmatism. They do whatever it takes to win. They communicate by their actions that winning is much more important than any standard of morality.”

Greg Linville

Wow – what a challenge to us for the next time we’re tempted to cheat. Through our actions we’re communicating that winning is more important to us than a standard of morality. That’s a high bar. But it sounds like the kind of high bar we need to apply to our leadership if we claim to be followers of Jesus Christ. The bottom line is, if we take the win at all costs approach into the rest of life, it can compromise our testimony and witness as followers of Jesus. After all, didn’t he say that the first shall be last and the last first (Matthew 20:16)? Doesn’t this turn the win at all costs mentality completely on it’s head?

I believe that, as leaders, we need to be very careful that we don’t subtly buy into the ends justify the means mentality. If we claim to follow Jesus then we can’t sacrifice our values upon the altar of humanistic pragmatism. Our actions can easily convey the message that success is more important than any standard of morality.

In the 16th century, Teresa of Avila wrote the following:

“However good the deed, one must never do the least wrong in performing it.”

Teresa of Avila

In that simple statement, the godly nun has single-handedly exposed that the end justifies the means is a myth of good leadership! Not only does the end not justify wrong deeds, but good intentions are not sufficient excuse for deliberately doing something that is morally questionable.

Often when we think about the phrase the end justifies the means we apply it to downright wrong things like corruption, bribery or other such nefarious tactics. However, the pressure upon leaders to perform can push them to adopt a win at all costs mentality that has a more subtly destructive impact. Yes, we may not take bribes, cheat on taxes, or break the law. Yet a primary way we expose our susceptibility to this attitude is in how we treat other people. This includes those closest to us – particularly our families who can be harmed as we ambitiously pursue our goals. And it extends to our our employees/staff/colleagues who can become expendable pawns that serve our unabated pursuit of success.

I know I’ve been guilty of making mistakes in this area. As a goal-oriented, visionary leader, it’s easy to make accomplishing our vision of paramount importance at the expense of other critical things – like people and relationships. There are countless sad stories of seemingly successful leaders who have accomplished great things for their organisation, but at the cost of their marriage, relationship with their children and their own health. Dig a little deeper, and you also find that their teams are toxic, full of people vying for position as they trample over one another trying to ascend the corporate ladder and curry favour with their boss. Sometimes people get hurt because we are too caught up in our activity to see that they are suffering. Hurt people will eventually buckle or lash out, damaging others in their wake.

Being goal-oriented is not a bad thing. However, if achieving goals becomes our obsession, then we are on a slippery slope to potentially adopting ungodly means in order to attain our ambitions. Ultimately, this becomes an issue of character. If we compromise our character, then we will begin to excuse behaviour that is driven primarily by our ego rather than seeking the good of others.

Stacy Rinehart in his wonderful book, Upside Down, provides the following corrective to this style of leadership:

“The heart of spiritual leadership, then, is serving people – looking out for what is best for them rather than using them as the means to a larger end.”

Stacy Rinehart

That is the key to avoiding pitfalls in this area – particularly in relation to sacrificing relationships on the altar of our success. Leaders need to ask themselves if we are looking out for the best interests of those around us, and this includes our families, colleagues, board members, shareholders, customers, beneficiaries etc. This is putting into practice the advice of the Apostle Paul who said, Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Philippians 2:4.

Rinehart then takes it a step further by giving a definition of success that is beyond the bottom line, bums on seats, winning score-line metric.

“The question is not ‘Does the leader have followers [or any other form of success]?’ but rather, ‘Does the Lord have followers as a result of the leader’s influence?’”

Stacy Rinehart

This completely changes the perspective. There is a righteous end that all Christ-following leadership should be pursuing; that God is glorified because people are faithfully following Him. If our ultimate motivation for leadership is to impact people’s spiritual well-being, then it stands to follow that we cannot justify ungodly means in pursuing that goal.

Simply put, don’t compromise your character in pursuit of success. When we compromise our character, then we risk negatively impacting those around us. No end is a cause on which to sacrifice your character.

tired-afro-office-employee-blazer-yawn-workplace-suffering-from-chronic-fatigue-boring-job.jpg

Leadership Myth-busting #8… first in, last to leave

, , , 2

It’s been a while since I’ve posted on leadership myth-busting. This is where I try and examine certain leadership mantra’s or practices that perhaps do not align with Jesus’ model of leadership… or are simply unhelpful to sustain leadership for the long-term. Please check out some of the previous posts in the series by clicking here…

So the Covid reality has given us a chance to reflect on practices that were perhaps standard fare for organisational leaders, but – in hindsight – were, frankly, quite weird. I’ve been doing some reading about our addiction to busyness and the importance of getting a better balance to life, work and ministry. There’s some great material out there… two recent best-sellers are Peter Scazzero’s Emotionally Healthy Leadership and Marc John Comer’s The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry. I’ve also been delving into some of Dallas Willard’s writing – which is ridiculously challenging (e.g. see this post I wrote). And then this comment by Frank Viola hits where it hurts:

‘Don’t be deceived. Busyness is a myth. We all make time for what matters most to us’ (Viola 2018:429).

There are different dimensions to the myth of busyness… and what I want to expose here is one that I bought in to during my early years of leadership (and perhaps is so ingrained that I’m struggling to shake it off). It’s simply the myth that leaders should be first in, and last to leave. Maybe millennials won’t struggle with this – but I think it’s something of a subconscious maxim for Gen X leaders. The myth is that we should be at our desks and begin being furiously productive before anyone else gets to work… and then we should still be poring over reports, making phone calls, and demonstrating great commitment to the cause long after everyone else has clocked out. Watch any TV show or movie that features a workaholic leader and they will be depicted in this peri-heroic way… sacrificing personal pleasure (and wellbeing) on the altar of success and productivity.

The logic behind the myth is perhaps two-fold… we’re leaders so we must demonstrate and model an impeccable work ethic. And we’re leaders, so we need to justify the higher salary we receive and put in the extra hours to demonstrate our true worth. It seems synonymous with the so-call protestant work ethic… that hard work and self-sacrifice are the true ingredients for success. And one key way that this is demonstrated is through being first in, and last to leave.

Perhaps the motives are more pernicious? I would suggest (from my own experience) it’s a combination of pride and addiction. We like to boast about the long hours we slave at the office and we are addicted to the pursuit of success, even when it comes at a high price. Maybe, at its most insidious, this all stems from a god-complex! We feel we can run our organisation, control our world, and wield power – all from behind our desk.

However, when we think about this rationally, it’s actually ludicrous. What are we thinking? And what are we modelling to others?? We think being first in and last out models commitment, hard work and the self-sacrifices needed to be successful. But how about we model something different? Can we not be leaders that are committed to other priorities such as family, leisure, church, relationships, serving others, community involvement? Shouldn’t we be making time and space for a multi-dimensional life rather than being chained to the desk?

Now, we know that Jesus didn’t have a 9-5 desk job, but he does give an example of pursuing a balanced and healthy approach to life. Yes, he worked hard, but he also retreated from the crowds in order to be refreshed and listen to God. He took time to hang out with friends, attend weddings and parties, and spent plenty of time outdoors. A quick read through the action-packed gospel of Mark and you can see Jesus’ leadership was not one-dimensional.

Maybe a post-covid world will break this myth. But, I’m not so sure. Perhaps they’ll be a danger of simply reverting to type. (Or maybe working virtually will completely blur the lines and cause other challenges – but that can be a discussion for another time).

So, whether you have already returned to your office – or intend to in the near future, maybe you need to join me in trying to do something radical. If you’re first in, be the first to leave. And if I’m not first in, that’s fine! I can make my contribution within my contracted hours, and happily leave my desk knowing I’ve given my best and still have energy left to also give my best in other areas of my life.

Peter Scazerro writes this:

“Limits are often simply God’s gifts in disguise. This makes them one of the most counterintuitive, difficult truths in Scripture to embrace. It flies in the face of our natural tendency to want to play god and run the world” (Scazerro 2015:205).

When we buy into the first in, last to leave myth, we are in danger of operating beyond the limits that God has put in place. Perhaps if we seek to honour those limits, we will find we can be more productive and sustain good leadership performance for the long haul.

818.jpg

Leadership Myth Busting #7… the miracle of multitasking

2

Disclaimer: sometimes writing a blog involves rethinking my own approach to leadership.

I consider myself an efficient, outcomes-based, and productive leader. I remember getting my first blackberry (in the late noughties) and the joy of being able to redeem lost time by replying to emails while sitting through dull meetings, waiting in supermarket queues, and sat on the toilet! I’ve felt that technology has equipped me to multi-task effectively, enabling me to spin many plates at the same time and make better use of the limited number of hours there is in every day.

And now, with the Covid-19 lockdown and the utilisation of more technology (Zoom, Teams, Skype et al.), I am increasingly faced with the temptation to do multiple things at once. Particularly while attending online meetings I can simultaneously write an email, respond to WhatsApp messages, check my diary etc. etc. as I nonchalantly Alt-Tab from window to window (as a Microsoft user). I must even confess that I started writing this blog on the myth of multitasking while I was attending a webinar (hypocrite you correctly accuse)!

But I’m reconsidering my position and wondering whether my penchant for muti-tasking is actually a form of ill-discipline… and simply an excuse for not giving one person or task the attention it deserves, while compromising on the excellence of my work and causing myself undue stress in the process. Additionally, beyond multi-tasking, I’m guilty of multi-thinking; not allowing my mind to switch off. At any time of day or night, during conversations and even ‘family-time’, my thoughts can drift back to work-matters, my to-do list, or the next blog I want to write. Is this just how I’m wired? Or is it inherently unhealthy?

As you can see – I’m processing. But let me back up because it was something I read that has led me into this mini-crisis to doubt whether I should truly aspire to be a miracle-working multi-tasker.

John Mark Comer has written an easy-to-read yet challenging book called The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry (a must-read for 21st-century leaders). At the end of the book, he gives 20 pieces of advice to help slow our lives down. Number 14 on his list is Single-Task. Just the word hit me between the eyes. I’ve heard many people laud the qualities of multi-tasking – but I didn’t even think that single-tasking was a thing. Comer says:

I’ve come to realise the obvious: multitasking is a myth. Literally. Only God is omnipresent.

Given that I’m into this “leadership myth-busting thing” I was convicted by his statement. Have I bought into the multi-tasking myth and is my pride in being able to multi-task really a figment of my imagination? Am I really trying to be godlike when I multi-task as this would clearly be overreaching myself? He goes on to say:

Multitasking is just sleight of hand for switching back and forth between a lot of different tasks so I can do them all poorly instead of doing one well

Wow! I’m now on the ropes and Comer gives a knockout punch by quoting theological giant, Walter Brueggemann:

Multitasking is the drive to be more than we are, to control more than we do, to extend our power and our effectiveness. Such practice yields a divided self, with full attention given to nothing.

Oops! I didn’t see that coming!

As I’ve been reflecting on this it has caused me to consider what I’m modelling to others. Does my outcomes-based, productivity-centred, goal-oriented approach model to emerging leaders something that is actually unattainable and potentially harmful to their leadership development? Am I both robbing people of my full attention and sending subliminal messages to those I lead that makes them feel devalued?

Slowing down to properly focus and attend to each task at a time does seem like a counter-cultural leadership practice – and therefore is, more than likely, a Christlike approach to leadership. I’ve been reading the accounts of Jesus life and teaching again recently, and have been struck by his single-task focus. No-one ever got his divided attention!

April Yamaski in her book Sacred Pauses also advocates for greater simplicity – for single-tasking. She argues that moving towards greater simplicity in our daily scheduling is a spiritual practice that can enable us to become more effective. Yamaski writes:

Simplicity is not only about letting go of the things of this life; it also means being centred on what really matters… Simplicity means that I don’t need to be multitasking every moment. Instead, I can slow down to pay attention to one thing at a time.

Maybe the underlining myth is that leading complex, full lives that stretch us to the limit of our capacity is somehow what’s required of us as leaders. Multi-tasking then flows as we succumb to unhealthy and unrealistic expectations. There is no miracle of muti-tasking. The miracle for me is if I can simplify my life in such a way that enables me to provide focused, meaningful, God-honouring attention to one task at a time.

After all, Jeremy Clarkson has reportedly quipped, multitasking is the ability to screw everything up simultaneously!

So I’m going to start an experiment in single-tasking. It’s going to take a fair amount of reprogramming the way I operate. I’ll need to develop some early warning systems to alert me when I revert to type. But let’s see what happens. Maybe I’ll end up in complete agreement that the miracle of multitasking is definitely a myth worth busting.

people.jpg

Leadership Myth Busting #6… people mean problems

0

 

“People mean problems…”

To my shame, this is a phrase I have used in the past. And it seems like a fact of leadership… the more people we have around us, the more problems we can end up dealing with. We’ve just been through our annual appraisal season at The Message SA. On my good days, I recognise that the appraisal season is a good time to unearth some of the challenges that my team are facing and find constructive ways to deal with them. On my bad days, my insecurities emerge and I become unduly concerned that we’ll uncover latent problems that will absorb time, effort and emotional energy. Clearly, this comes from past challenges and hurts and can lead to the second element of the same myth: the more people we lead, the more problems we will face.

These attitudes can debilitate us from effectively leading our teams because it causes us to devalue our most important asset – those we are leading. The consequence is that the myth of people mean problems makes it impossible to be a servant leader because the foundation of servant leadership is that we value others as of the utmost importance. When we believe that people mean problems, we can end up isolating ourselves from people and building barriers rather than bridges. This is the antithesis of servant leadership because it is the antithesis of how Jesus viewed people.

Would Jesus have said ‘people mean problems’? Of all people – Jesus was qualified to make this statement because he didn’t carry the baggage of sin. He could have easily written us all off because we do carry problems. However, rather than write us off, Jesus invited those of us with insecurities, hang-ups, issues, and problems to come to Him:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
Matthew 11:28-30

Throughout his life on earth, Jesus continually sought out people with problems. He hang-out with those who no doubt drained him emotionally, frustrated him no end, and caused him undue stress. And in so doing, he called out latent potential and saw many ‘problem people’ be transformed (e.g. Zacheus and the Samaritan woman).

The beautiful reality that we now behold as leaders following in Christ’s example is that the same invitation that Jesus made 2000 years ago, is available to us today. So, when we encounter people with problems, we don’t have to be their solution. In fact, if we try and be their solution, we will just add to their problems. But we can ask Jesus to help us love and serve them in such a way that will enable them to take their stress, pain and sorrow to Him. He is the only one who can carry their burdens and heal their brokenness.

Yes, people do have problems and they carry problems and can cause problems. But we must never define people by the problems they carry. When we do that, we lose any opportunity to actually help and empower the people we lead to overcome those problems and become positive and constructive team members.

To really debunk this myth we need to reframe how we think about people. Here are four ways we can re-prorgamme our thinking to help us Grab a Towel and genuinely value people.

  1. People are your priority. In Grab a Towel I write that we must Put People First! People must come before programmes, projects and profit. If we only see people as a means to an end, then we devalue them because we will judge them based upon their output and contribution to our agenda. This means that when problems do emerge, we are quick to write people off because they are no longer adding value towards our goals. If this is how we view people, then we need to have our minds and hearts transformed. People are our priority. If we accomplish great feats in life but hurt people, ruin relationships and blaze a trail of pain and fear, then I’m afraid that we have accomplished nothing of lasting value.

  2. People have potential. At The Message we believe that every person has potential. We view our mission as uncovering dormant potential where others don’t see it… in prisons, gangs and tough communities. The reason we believe that every person has potential is because Jesus was not selective in who he chose to die for. His death was once and for all (Romans 6:10). The message of the bible is eternally inclusive! If Jesus thought every person worth dying for, then I need to get on the same page as Him and have faith that even people who may cause me the most problems, still have the potential for greatness.

  3. People are your pride. I love how Paul talks about people. Whether the church in Thessalonica (see 1 Thess. 1:2-3) or individuals like Timothy whom he was mentoring (see 2 Timothy 1:3-5), Paul exuded great pride in his friends and team-mates. The secret to taking healthy pride in your people is to start looking for what they are doing well and praise them for it. An atmosphere of encouragement builds trust and enables people to fulfil their potential. Additionally, boast about your people to others… let people know that you take pride in your team. [On that note… I’m so blessed to lead the greatest team – so I’ll let the rest of you fight it out for second place!]

  4. People are not perfect. At the risk of a seeming contradiction, this is critical to overcoming the myth of seeing people as problems. Sometimes the myth rears it’s ugly face because our expectations are simply too high… we’re asking people to be perfect. This causes all kinds of undue stress and strain. If we recognise that people aren’t perfect then it allows people the freedom to mess up, fail, and cause us the occasional problem. The environment we need to foster should allow people to make mistakes in the knowledge that second-chances are always available – because we recognise that we ourselves are not perfect. This contributes to a redemptive environment that fosters unity and hope.

Let’s not buy into the myth of writing people off as problems. In the diversity of our teams, there is so much we can learn. In the words of Eugene H. Petersen

People are not problems to be solved. They are mysteries to be explored.

As we put people first we will find that exploring these mysteries will lead us to become richer people able to better grab a towel and serve others.

pete portal.jpg

Leadership Myth Busting #5… the ‘frontline’ of missions

, 0

This is a guest post by Pete Portal taken from his book, No Neutral Ground: Finding Jesus in a Cape Town Ghetto. Pete has lived and served in Manenberg, one of Cape Town’s most notorious gang-infested communities, over the past decade. The book tells stories of God’s mighty works, as well as relapse, hopelessness and despair; the miraculous and the mundane, heaven and hell, all balanced on a knife-edge.

The Myth of the Frontline

I think I know what people are alluding to when they say that because we live in Manenberg, we are ‘ministering on the front line’. I think I know what they mean. We have had two bullets fly through our office windows during gang fights, dear friends and family have been killed, our houses have been broken into by those we have been trying to serve, we’ve seen miraculous financial provision come in as we’ve prayed for salaries or emergency rehab funds, we’ve watched friends come painlessly off drugs through the power of the Holy Spirit, and felt the hope drain out of us as others crash and burn for the umpteenth time, and we’re all committed to living among the poor and marginalised.

But here’s my issue with the F word – isn’t this just the normal Christian life? What else do we honestly think following Jesus is about? He did miracles of great power, loved until it hurt, equipped his disciples to cultivate counter-cultural communities of faith, celebrated the outcast, and obediently followed the Father’s voice (despite Peter’s sensible-sounding but ultimately demonic advice to the contrary) all the way to Calvary. Then he told us to ‘go do the same’. I sometimes wonder where the concept of ‘front-line’ ministry came from. Might it have come out of the boredom of the Christian ghetto – where Jesus’ passions have largely been replaced by chatting about church culture or running Christian courses while sipping a cold drip coffee and Instagramming a photo of our homegroup?

The notion of ‘front-line’ ministry creates two problems. It disempowers and it dichotomises. Let me explain. You’ll rarely hear those who are part of ‘front-line’ ministry describing their lives that way. It’s a term generally used by Western Christians who don’t spend their lives, say, preaching on street corners or living among the poor. And it’s a concept that automatically disempowers those who subscribe to it – because it implies they aren’t ‘doing the stuff’, ‘sold out for Jesus’, or ‘living a life of sacrifice’ (to use the clichéd phrases), and are unable to, living as the do in middle-class suburbia. Is it any less ‘front line’ to stack supermarket shelves, or buy out bankrupt companies, or sell cars, or arrange flowers, or raise children a home, or make multi-million-pound deals in a boardroom? As Bill Johnson has helpfully put it, ‘there is no such thing as secular employment for the believer. Once we are born again, everything about us is redeemed for Kingdom purposes. It is all spiritual. It is either a legitimate Kingdom expression, or we shouldn’t be involved at all.’ It’s got to be true that any vocatio can be ‘front line’ – if we live with the deep-set conviction that we have been placed in a specific sphere of influence to represent Jesus and make him known.

Once during an ugly gang fight in Manenberg I went to buy milk from a local house shop run by a Somali man. This involved running from the door of our office building, looking left and right to make sure no one was about to blow my head off, and nervously jog-walking across the road. The shopkeeper was stood behind a metal grille that was not remotely bullet-proof. He’d been there all morning witnessing the gun battles on the street. I asked him if he was doing OK and how he was dealing with life on the front line. His reply was a belter: ‘My friend, I’m from Mogadishu – living in Manenberg is easy! It’s pieces of cake!’ I wandered back to the office, struck by how relative everything is. I grew up in middle-class Sevenoaks, half an hour south of London, in the county of Kent, aptly named the Garden of England. The only gang I came into contact with, growing up, was a group of prepubescent kids roller-skating on a road up from ours who called me name. And to me, some of the things that go down in Manenberg are pretty shocking. Yet, had I grown up in war-torn Mogadishu, my perspective of Manenberg would be completely different.

And so I wonder if the ‘front line’ might be a myth. I wonder if, like the single story, it really exists. Might it be yet more evidence of the unhelpful dichotomy we’ve established between what is seen as being sacred and what is termed ‘secular’. That a dichotomy has been created between the sacred and the secular is no secret. But it’s unbiblical. To assert one vocation as being secular and another as front line is theologically wrong… So let me say it again: we are all in front-line ministry if we are doing what God has asked us to do.

 

Pete is originally from London but has lived in Cape Town since 2009. He left a promising career in children’s television to move to Manenberg, one of South Africa’s most notorious communities. He and his wife Sarah serve on the Core Leadership Team of Tree of Life, a church community in Manenberg that runs ministries among the vulnerable and marginalised.

274.jpg

Leadership Myth Busting #4… “full time ministry”

, , , , , , 0

I’ve now been in paid Christian work for over 20 years. Initially, I worked in two churches as a ‘youth pastor’ but have since been leading missional organisations (registered as Christian non-profit organisations). I have, therefore, been employed in what is commonly called ‘full-time ministry’. Yet, the longer I’ve been doing what I do, the more I’ve come to realise the dangers of the distinction between those in ‘ministry’ and other classifications of Christians.

The myth that there are varying degrees of Christian ministry is one that needs to be busted. The danger of the concept of ‘full-time ministry’ can be particularly pernicious when related to leadership. There is a double power-whammy when secular approaches to leadership are coupled with a hierarchy of Christian ministry. This toxic mix can result in Christian professionals who are paid to perform Christian duties on behalf of a consumerist Christian culture. Over hundreds of years of the church, this has resulted in a distinction between what is termed the ‘laity’ and those in “ministry’. This separation causes some to ‘sit and soak’, while others are expected to ‘stand and deliver’.

 I believe Peter helps explode the myth that some are in ministry and some aren’t when he wrote: As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. (1 Peter 4:10 NKJV).

 Let’s break this down by asking some questions:

Who has received a gift? Everyone. Not just church leaders, missionaries, or any other form of paid Christian worker. The implication is everyone has been given a unique gift – something given by God for the purpose to serve others. Not the chosen few. Everyone!

 What is the purpose of the gift? It is to minister to others. The gift is to be employed in the service of others… that’s what ministry is. One Christian simply serving another person.

 What is the ultimate purpose of ministry? Peter says that each person is then required to be a good steward of their gift, through which they are revealing the grace of God. When we grab a towel and serve others, we are demonstrating the ‘multi-faceted grace’ of God (as the Amplified Bible puts it).

 The conclusion is that ministry is not about position, professional or otherwise. It is all about service. When we serve we are in ministry… nothing more, nothing less. All of us. Title or no title. Qualifications or no qualifications. New believers or mature elder. Those that serve are in ministry, and those in ministry are those who serve!

 Christians have continued to create a divide between the so-called laity and clergy, the sacred and the secular. Frank Viola argues that “the term ‘laity’ is one of the worst in the vocabulary of religion and ought to be banished from the Christian conversation….” Likewise, AW Tozer exploded the myth of dichotomy between what is sacred and secular. He wrote: “It is not what a man does that determines whether his work is sacred or secular, it is why he does it. The motive is everything.” Therefore, the person serving in their work-place is performing an equally ‘sacred’ role as a full-time pastor (or other paid Chrisitan worker), if their motive is to bring pleasure to God

 Paul sums up the heart and motive of what true ministry is when he wrote to the church in Colossae, He said, “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col.3:17). The key word here is whatever. In the Bible, there is no limitation on what is considered ministry and what is considered something else. As believers, everything we do is a function of our ministry and calling to serve the Lord.

 One of my favourite quotes on this subject is from Stacy Rinehart who wrote in his book Upside Down,

Ministry is not a task, program, or production. It is an act of worship by people who acknowledge that God’s great mercy has redeemed them for the purpose of relationship with Him, for sacrifice, and for service to others.

 Of course, the terms ‘being in ministry’ and ‘full-time ministry’ have become entrenched in our language and will probably remain that way. However, we need to be careful of the assumptions that are being perpetuated through the language we use. It is a myth that there are different classes of Christians. It is a myth that those of us who receive salaries because we are in some form of Christian employment are more qualified to minister than anyone else. Everybody is in full-time ministry! God has uniquely called and equipped every follower of Christ to serve others. There is a distinct purpose and role for every believer.

And as leaders we need to be especially careful that we don’t reinforce the ‘full-time ministry’ myth through our words or actions. The best way to do this is to grab a towel and ensure that we assume the posture of a servant… recognising that our ministry, as leaders, is to enable others to flourish. Our primary goal is to help others serve God more effectively as they discover their calling, gifts and purpose. Therefore, my job as a leader within a Christian non-profit organisation is to provide a platform for as many people as possible to discover that they are in full time ministry as servants of the Lord.

 How about you – how are you expressing your call to full-time ministry?

corporate ladder.jpg

Leadership Myth Busting #3… Work yourself out of a job

0

‘My goal is to work myself out of a job.’

I’ve heard the statement many times. I’ve probably said it myself. I don’t think anyone says it with anything other than well-intentioned motives. However, is it factual… or is it a myth?

When a leader, pastor, manager or executive is asked; what is your main goal, they may well reply; ‘to work myself out of a job’. It’s one of those statements that sounds so convincing and perhaps is adopted by many people as a de facto goal of being a leader. But, is working yourself out of a job a realistic aim.? Or is it a myth? Does grabbing a towel as a servant leader mean that working yourself out of a job becomes an imperative aim?

One article I read (by Robert Greiner) describes working yourself out of a job in this way:

[it] means building up your team in such a way that someday you could walk away from your project and everything would continue running normally without a hitch. In order to do this you must invest greatly in your team. You must push and inspire them to grow and improve their skill set. You must keep them from becoming demotivated and complacent.

The anticipated culmination of this process is that someone moves from purely accomplishing certain delegated tasks that the leader assigns them, to being able to take full responsibility for the role.

He then goes on to write: In the process of working yourself out of a job, you also need to focus on working yourself into the next job.

I have to concede that this is probably great advice if your goal is to climb the corporate ladder. Clearly, empowering others is a really great goal and one of the hallmarks I wrote about in Grab a Towel. But, as we’ve seen previously in this series, we are testing conventional wisdom through the lens of becoming a Christ-centred servant leader. The conventional wisdom here is that we work ourselves out of a job in order that we can take another position and increase our opportunities for influence (and possibly earning capacity). The danger is that working yourself out of a job is less about empowering others, and more about self-advancement.

The question we should ask of all conventional leadership wisdom is, did Jesus subscribe to this approach? Would Jesus have said, ‘I’ve come to earth in order to work myself out of a job’?

You might argue that Jesus did say it was better that he went away in order that he could send the Holy Spirit… but Jesus wasn’t saying his job was done at that point. Rather, it was just beginning (John 16:7). He would continue to empower the disciples (Acts 1:8) and intercede on their behalf (Romans 8:34). Jesus did not simply ‘do himself out of a job’ – he called and trained up 12 people in whom he invested over three intense years. The disciples were not qualified and at times they were not particularly reliable! However, after his resurrection, he was able to call them together and commission them to go into all the world and become disciple-makers themselves. By training the apostles, Christ multiplied his effectiveness as they likewise committed themselves to this process of multiplication. Christ’s work wasn’t completed when he ascended to heaven. Rather, his capacity was multiplied 12 times – and multiplied exponentially more as the growth ratio of the early church exploded after Pentecost.

I believe the language of servant leadership should focus on empowering others in order that we can multiply impact, rather than build our own portfolio to enable us to move up the next step of our own leadership ambitions. Rather, as servant leaders, we should always be prepared for change and that some people we have mentored may surpass us in what they accomplish. That doesn’t mean we’ve worked ourselves out of a job. Rather, our job has simply changed.

I was recently at the induction service of a friend. Just over three years ago his father, who had planted and pastored a church in Cape Town, had suddenly passed away. In the immediate aftermath of this tragic death, his wife (my friend’s mom) took on the reigns of pastoring the church. Now, three years on, she was passing those reigns on to her son. At the induction she said something that really struck a chord with me; ‘My role now is to cheer him on as my son and serve under him as my pastor’. She recognised that even though she didn’t have the title of Senior Pastor anymore, she still had a role to play. Her work wasn’t done! Perhaps, in many ways, it is just beginning!

Again, conventional wisdom is that a senior leader should not only step aside when they hand over the reins to someone else, rather they should also move out of the way completely. I guess we all know of some disastrous cases where a founder, executive leader or senior pastor has tried to step aside, only to continue interfering and completely undermine their incumbent. And yes, in some cases the best job a former leader can do is to put some distance between them and their successor – particularly if their meddlesome interference is going to cause damage.

However, just because we can point to negative experiences, doesn’t mean that should shape our approach to succession planning. I believe a biblical goal is to recognise that we may always have a role to play in the lives of those who succeed us. We haven’t ‘done ourselves out of a job’ when someone succeeds or surpasses us – because we still have the responsibility to continue to serve them, cheer them on, pray for them, create more opportunities for them, speak well of them, encourage them, maybe occasionally (very occasionally) rebuke them and do whatever we can to ensure that they do a better job than we could ever have done. This is not simply a matter of positional leadership (I’ve worked myself out of a job so I can now focus on my next role). Rather, it concerns the nature of the relationship we have with emerging leaders and what it truly means to leave a legacy.

Afrika Mhlope writes: ‘Occupiers of positions lose their influence as soon as they vacate their positions, but leaders don’t. Effective leaders continue to be influential even after someone else occupies their former position and takes over their title. Defective leaders, on the other hand, are solely dependent on positions and titles in order to lead’ (in A Passion for Position).

I believe this approach will change the focus of our goals as leaders. We’re not interested in simply working ourselves out of a job, but creating a foundation for an exponential ripple effect as we identify, support, multiply and cheer on those within our sphere of influence.

Maybe you feel that the myth has not been busted and that this is simply a matter of semantics. However, perhaps you will think twice when you state this as a goal in the future. I hope you will ask yourself the hard questions; am I seeking to work myself out of a job to genuinely create opportunities for others, or is it simply about my own self-advancement? And is my job really ever done… or does the nature of my role simply change over time? If we ask ourselves these questions, then perhaps we’ll be grappling with what the word legacy really means.

Notes:

  1. one great example to consider is how David provided an incredible platform for Solomon when his son succeeded him as king. See 1 Chronicles 28-29.

  2. I have uploaded a chapter from my book, The Pace Setter, which looks a little at this theme. Click here to open the article.

real fake.jpg

Leadership Myth Busting #2… fake it till you make it

0

I have had numerous conversations recently with leaders who are recognising the need to become more vulnerable in their leadership. However, they are concerned that exposing weakness may undermine their leadership authority. For too long, leaders have been told (either implicitly or explicitly) that revealing weaknesses leaves us open to being exploited and manipulated. I believe this is a leadership myth that desperately needs to be busted.

The mantra goes something like: ‘If you don’t have the confidence to follow through on a decision, then fake it till you make it.’ In other words, deceive your followers into thinking that you don’t have doubts, that you are somehow impenetrable in your conclusions, and, therefore, you are devoid of weaknesses. If you don’t feel that way… fake it. Don’t reveal what you feel on the inside. And if you harden yourself enough in this way, then perhaps you just might make it… you’ll deceive people long enough for them to believe you are the persona that you are portraying.

Additionally, if you are feeling low, down or overwhelmed, then the answer is fake it till you make it. Leaders don’t have the luxury to show their feelings – particularly to their so-called sub-ordinates. Suck it up! If you reveal emotional weakness then your days will be numbered as a leader because there’s always someone with the mental toughness ready to step into your shoes.

This is the myth of super-hero leadership that I have sought to debunk in Grab a Towel. Fake it till you make it is not a hallmark of Christ-centred servant leaders because I don’t think those are words that would have come from the lips of Jesus Christ.

Jesus had no problem with expressing vulnerability because he didn’t lead from an impenetrable fortress of autocracy. Rather, he led out of relationships forged through loving friendship, devoted companionship, and genuine trust. As such, Jesus was not afraid to publicly express grief (Jn. 11:35), compassion (Mt. 9:36), tiredness (Jn. 4:6), frustration (Mk. 9:19)  and feeling overwhelmed with sorrow (Mt. 26:38). He allowed those closest to him to see him at his most vulnerable giving them an example that they should follow him (Jn. 13:15).

Likewise, David, the great king of Israel, had no issue expressing his vulnerabilities and frustrations. Read any of the psalms he penned which are painfully transparent as he grappled with issues of failure, fear and faith.

Both King David, and Jesus, the Son of David, show us that being vulnerable is not a sign of weakness that will lead to rejection. Rather, being vulnerable takes courage and strength. Perhaps this is best expressed in the words that they both utilised in their time of greatest trial… ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me’ (penned originally by David in Psalm 22:1 and quoted by Jesus on the cross – see Matthew 27:46). David and Jesus did not fake it till they made it . They publicly confessed their anguish. And their example has stood the test of time. In particular, Jesus’ continues to draw the trust of hundreds of millions of followers who relate to his humanity, while worshiping his divinity.  

Ultimately, being fake breaks trust. It seems almost too obvious to need to write it out. If you buy a product with a certain label on it only to find out that it’s a counterfeit, then you would not trust that supplier again. Surely we should apply that same logic to our leaders. If you found out your leader was faking it in their attempt to make it, would you continue to trust them, respect them, and follow them?

We live in a world where fake is being capitalised on – to the detriment of our society. Fake news has always been around in various guises, but the internet has turned it into a multi-million-dollar industry. Due to the propensity to propagating lies, we now need to ‘fact check’ everything we read to ensure it is trustworthy. And all of us, through a toxic combination of social media and Photoshop, are able to portray a fake image of ourselves to the world. We then need to deal with the incongruity of knowing that what we display on the outside is not who we really are (so much so that we might want to call one of the platforms FakeBook). This leads to feelings of insecurity and growing fears that we will ultimately be rejected when people actually discover the truth about us. So the vicious cycle of faking it continues until we eventually are too broken to function effectively (expressed in burnout, depression, loneliness etc).

Hopefully the myth has been busted. Christ-centred servant leaders don’t need to fake it till they make it. Rather, we need to be committed to the following:

  1. Authenticity. We don’t need to try to be someone else and we mustn’t always pretend that everything is OK. Rick Warren has written: You are not authentic until you can publicly admit how inauthentic you are most of the time. Authenticity begins when you start admitting that you are inauthentic.

Yes, we can learn from others and ultimately we learn from the example of Christ. We must allow Jesus to transform us from the inside out through the power of the Holy Spirit. This happens over time as we cultivate our relationship with him. But this process cannot be short-circuited or manipulated. We need to acknowledge that we are a work in process. Simply saying ‘I don’t have all the answers’, can free us and enable us to learn from others, lean on others and commit to being someone who leads out of relationships rather than position or power.

  1. Vulnerability. Let me take some pressure off you… you will make mistakes. You will let people down, fail, want to give up, feel down – etc. etc. (I’ve got all those t-shirts). You get the picture! The reality is that everyone you lead already knows your failings – normally better than you know them yourself. And they know that they also have their own weaknesses and struggles. By admitting your own struggles, you give other people permission to also be vulnerable about their difficulties. This is a culture we need to imbibe in our families, organisations and churches. It provides an environment for people to be free to be authentic. This is why James teaches us to: confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. Confession and prayer are two timeless disciplines that all servant leaders need to model… and they are antidote to being tempted to fake it.
  2. Integrity. The Blackaby’s state it well: Integrity means being consistent in one’s behaviour under every circumstance, including those unguarded moments. If leaders are normally peaceable and well mannered, but they throw violent temper tantrums when things go wrong, their lives lack integrity. If leaders are honest and moral in public, but discard those standards in private, their lives lack integrity. When leaders have integrity, their followers always know what to expect. Simply put, those who fake it lack integrity and are untrustworthy. Integrity demands that we seek to be consistent, honest and open. This is the pathway to forging a Christ-like character (see chapter 1 of Grab a Towel).

The reality is, we don’t serve anyone by being fake. Servant leaders grab a towel and serve others through being authentic, vulnerable and maintaining their integrity. This allows God to turn weaknesses into strengths. It’s a brave path that is not trodden by many leaders in the 21st century. Let’s not fake it till we break it, but follow the mantra of Paul who said, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong (1 Cor. 12:10).

 

Load More