Moses and the Temporary Nature of Leadership

by: Eric Geiger

1

Tweet

Leadership is always a temporary assignment—always. It is a temporary assignment because leaders do not ultimately own the teams, ministries, or organizations that they lead. They simply steward what the Lord has entrusted to their care for a season. Wise leaders embrace the temporal reality of leading, and they prepare the ministry for the future. Because the assignment is fleeting, developing others for leadership is an essential responsibility of a leader.

Moses understood the temporary nature of leadership and the necessity of succession. He personally selected and invested in leaders. He modeled leadership by replicating leaders.

This pattern of divesting and replicating leadership began not long after the exodus from Egypt. Moses led a group of millions literally by himself. At one point in his ministry, Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, arrived for a visit and asked, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?” (Ex.18:14). Moses tried to explain his role as arbiter of millions, but his answers fell short. Jethro, always quick to correct, said, “What you are doing is not good. You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone” (Ex.18:17-18).

Jethro encouraged Moses to select honorable, wise, and godly men who could be taught basic interpretation of God’s laws and instruction. It was a defined leadership system designed not only to alleviate stress immediately from Moses but also to sustain the young nation for the long haul. Ultimately Moses listened to Jethro, leaders emerged, his stress lessened, and his father-in-law went home.

This pattern of multiplication in Moses’ life and leadership reached its pinnacle with his selection of Joshua as his successor.

Joshua is first mentioned in the Scripture when Moses chose him to lead the Israelite army in battle against the Amalekites (Ex. 17:8-16). From that moment forward, we observe Moses intentionally developing Joshua.

As you read through the Scripture, you see Moses pouring into Joshua. Moses brought Joshua up the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments from God (Ex. 24:13). Joshua observed Moses’ righteous indignation when Moses smashed the two tablets (Ex. 32:17-19), and Joshua was witness to the holy communion Moses shared with the Lord as he guarded the tent of meeting (Ex. 33:11).

Through all these critical moments in the life of God’s people, Joshua was there with Moses. Moses helped ensure the following generation would love and fear God. He served his people by pouring his life into another. And immediately after Moses’ death, Joshua was ready to lead Israel.

Moses’ behavior is a model for modern-day leadership. We can see the priority he placed on the future by how he empowered younger leaders like Joshua. Simply put, leaders are responsible for future leadership.

A leader who is not developing future leaders is not serving the organization well. The leader is either being shortsighted or selfish—shortsighted in that the future is not being considered or selfish in that the leader thinks only about himself/herself.

The leadership legacy of Joshua, sadly, is very different, as we find in the Book of Judges. After Joshua’s death, Israel drifted from the Lord and lived in chaos:

“Joshua son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died at the age of 110…That whole generation was also gathered to their ancestors. After them another generation rose up who did not know the Lord or the works He had done for Israel” (Judges 2:8,10, HCSB).

Why the stark contrast?

There is no record of Joshua investing in anyone. We don’t see him intentionally developing leaders. We don’t read of him pouring into others. And the generation after his leadership didn’t know the Lord.

A soul-searching question: If you were to hand your temporary leadership assignments over today, would a statement about your leadership sound more like Moses or more like Joshua?

Moses proactively and intentionally invested his life in Joshua. Under Joshua’s leadership, Israel enjoyed great prosperity and victory. But Joshua failed to see the value of investing in younger leaders.

Will you be like Moses or like Joshua? Will you invest in others who will ensure the following generations know of the Lord and His gracious works?

> Read more from Eric.

Tags: Eric Geiger, Joshua, Leadership Development, Moses, temporary leadership

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

To Bless Many, Focus on a Few

by: Eric Geiger

0

Tweet

As a leader, where should the majority of your focus be? Should you be focused on the crowd or on a smaller group of people?

As you read through the gospels, you find Jesus being incredibly intentional with His disciples and intensely focused on their development. Jesus was focused on a few, for the blessing of the many. Because His disciples were transformed and trained, the world was radically impacted. Robert Coleman wrote, “His concern was not with programs to reach the multitudes, but with men, who the multitudes would follow… The disciples were to be His method of winning the world to God.”

Luke 12 provides us a snapshot of Jesus’ intense focus on His disciples. A massive crowd gathered around Jesus, so much so that people were trampling on one another. And Jesus “began to say to His disciples first” (Luke 12:1). Jesus’ first concern was not the crowd, but His disciples.

Try to get a sense of the scene… Imagine showing up at a major Christian event to hear an incredible communicator, the one everyone longs to hear from. The stadium is sold-out. Christians are honking at one another in the massive parking lot and cutting in front of one another in line, vying for the best seats. You finally sit down with your Diet Coke and chicken sandwich, ready to hear from an incredible teacher. To your surprise, the teacher invites a small group on the stage and speaks to them while you are sitting in the crowd. You think, “Is this some type of illustration?” But the teacher continues. Finally someone asks a question. The famous speaker briefly answers but then turns back to the small group and continues addressing them directly. It could seem a bit odd, a bit dismissive of the crowd. This is how Luke 12 reads…

Jesus was teaching His disciples in the midst of a huge crowd, a crowd who has been waiting for this moment. After someone asked questions about dividing an inheritance, Jesus answered him with a parable and then again spoke directly to His disciples about not worrying, trusting God, seeking Him first, and being prepared (Luke 12:13-40). As you read the narrative, you get the sense that perhaps Peter feels badly for the crowd. He even asks Jesus, “Lord are you telling this parable to us or to everyone?” In other words, “Jesus there are a whole bunch of people here. Watching and listening to you right now. Are you thinking this is for them too?” Jesus didn’t answer Peter. He kept speaking to His disciples about faithfulness and suffering (Luke 12:41-53).

One would expect the well-sought out Teacher to speak to the masses and allow the smaller group to overhear. But Jesus spoke to the disciples and allowed the crowd to overhear, not the other way around. Jesus’ focus was precisely opposite of what we might expect.

Why did Jesus focus so passionately on His disciples? He knew His time with them was short, and they were the focus of His urgency. In John 17, in His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane for His disciples, Jesus prayed:

I have revealed Your name to the men You gave Me from the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they know that all things You have given to Me are from You, because the words that You gave Me, I have given them. They have received them … (John 17:6-8)

Jesus left His role as disciple-maker knowing “the words that you gave me, I have given them.” A time is approaching when you will vacate your role. Wise leaders envision their last day and work backwards. To make the biggest impact, the few need your focus. To bless many, focus on a few.

> Read more from Eric.

Tags: Disciplemaking, Discipleship Focus, Eric Geiger

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

How Not to Loathe the Culture You Are Leading

by: Eric Geiger

0

Tweet

One of the dangers of a growing organization or ministry is the temptation to quickly bring people on to the team to meet the demands of the growth. Of course, there is nothing wrong with desiring to scale the team. As the organization grows, wise leaders expand the leadership base.

The temptation is to take shortcuts on ensuring those joining the team are deeply committed to the mission and values of the organization/ministry. The temptation is to settle, to quickly grab a person and put him or her in a role. When work is piling up, unread emails in the inbox are growing, and demands seem to be rising, the easy solution seems to be quickly putting someone in a role. But wise leaders know—likely they have learned—that putting the wrong person in a role is a short-term solution with adverse long-term implications.

Tony Hsieh (founder & CEO of Zappos) tells the story about his former company, LinkExchange, which was sold to Microsoft for 265 million. When the company was just getting started, Tony and his friends loved the culture. They worked together all the time, sometimes forgetting what day it was. As the company initially grew, they hired their friends, people who shared the same values and understood the culture of the team. But as they continued to grow, “they ran out of friends to hire.” In other words, people began to join the team who did not share the same values. And the culture quickly deteriorated, so much so that Tony said he no longer wanted to come to work at his own company. He now obsesses over cultural fit in his current role at Zappos, and rightly so. Over half of an employee’s annual evaluation is based on living their values, and he has said, “An employee can be a superstar in job performance, but if they don’t live up to core values, we will fire them just for that.”

While we often imagine that declining and crumbling organizations begin to fall apart because they have grown complacent, Jim Collins, in his book How the Mighty Fall, states that complacency is not the issue. Decline begins when the growth of an organization outpaces the organization’s ability to have the right people at the table.

Surely one aspect of “the right people” is a deep-seated commitment to the mission and values that drive the organization. As the organization grows, new people will be invited to join the team. If you move too quickly and fail to ensure the alignment of values, you may end up loathing the culture of the team you are leading.

How can you not loathe the culture you are leading? Do everything you can to ensure the people joining the team, at their very core, carry the DNA of the culture you envision.

Read more from Eric here.

Tags: Eric Geiger, Leadership Culture, New Staff Position, Staff

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

The Cowardly Leader Checklist

by: Eric Geiger

1

Tweet

In his classic book Spiritual Leadership, Oswald Sanders lists courage along with humility, sincerity, and integrity as essential qualities for leaders. He writes, “Leadership always faces natural human inertia and opposition. But courage follows through with a task until it is done.”

The antithesis of courageous leadership, of course, is cowardly leadership, where leaders lack the moral integrity and conviction to do what is right for the right reasons. Here are five common expressions of found on a cowardly leader checklist:

Conviction is missing.

Cowardly leaders are open-handed and non-convictional about the most important things. Instead of possessing a conviction beneath the surface that guides their decisions and provides motivation, they are tossed about by the waves of opinion. 

Clarity is absent.

Cowardly leaders struggle to give clear direction because clear direction means there is a course of action. And a singular course of action means there could be failure, and there could be upset people, and there could be a lot of things that go wrong. So cowardly leaders find it safer to be unclear.

Confrontation is bundled.

Instead of confronting as issues arise, cowardly leaders bundle confrontation and store it up for a later delivery. Sometimes the delivery never occurs, but if it does, the person being confronted is typically caught off-guard. He or she has never been given an opportunity to correct and has missed opportunities to develop because confrontation was bundled. Instead of refusing to let the sun go down on anger, cowardly leaders keep long records of wrongs.

Credibility is borrowed.

Cowardly leaders feel the need to over-quote their supervisors when making a case. Instead of standing on the strength of their logic, the wisdom of the direction, or their own credibility, they merely borrow someone else’s—usually the overall leader of the organization. Typically this sounds like: “_________ says we should do this.” “Talk to _________. I am just the messenger.”

The mysterious “they” is over-utilized.

Cowardly leaders utilize the mysterious and nebulous “they”—the nameless group of people who say what the leader wants to say but lacks the courage to actually say it. So the cowardly leader merely quotes “they.” 

> Read more from Eric.

Do you want to learn how to avoid the characteristics of the Cowardly Leader Checklist? Connect with an Auxano Navigator and start a conversation with our team.

Tags: Cowardly Leader Checklist, Eric Geiger, Leadership

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Becoming a Servant Leader Through Strategic Thinking

by: Eric Geiger

0

Tweet

Last week I gave a sketch of the Eisenhower Matrix, which has challenged leaders to focus on the most important things and to not allow the urgent to dominate and derail them. As a reminder, here is a sketch of the matrix:

While many leaders have been served well with the thinking behind the framework, as Christians we must view the matrix through the lens of our faith.

We are servants first.

Without understanding your identity as a servant, leaders (myself included) can use the “important but not urgent” category as an excuse to isolate themselves and be unapproachable and unavailable to the teams they serve alongside.

Much of ministry to people is unplanned.

My friend Darrin Patrick has said, “The most impactful conversations happen at the most inconvenient times.” Some of the best interactions are not on the calendar. Some of the most holy moments are opportunities disguised as interruptions. Without that understanding, leaders (like myself) can loathe the urgent, and those great opportunities would be missed.

If you approach the matrix with the foundation that you are a servant and that God works in the midst of the urgent, then the matrix can be very helpful. After all, it is possible to be both a strategic leader and a servant leader. One does not need to negate the other. As you think about leading and serving your team, here are three thoughts about serving your team while simultaneously thinking more strategically about your time:

You don’t serve people well if you enable “urgent only” behavior.

There is a difference in being responsive to those you lead and enabling them to live with chaotic urgency. Some decisions and some conversations should not be “drive-by” or “drop-ins” because they won’t receive the focused time they warrant. We are serve our teams well if we help them move strategic conversations out of the urgent box.

The more conversations you move to the “important, not urgent” quadrant, the more energy you have for the “important, urgent.”

The “important, urgent” quadrant is where work gets done, where people are served in the midst of crises, and where we are able to respond to our teams. It is also the space that most overwhelms leaders. By moving some conversations to the “important, not urgent” box, leaders have more mental and emotional energy for the truly urgent.

If you don’t spend time in the “important, not urgent” quadrant, you are not serving the team well for the future

If you only live in the urgent boxes, you are not serving those you lead well. You are not developing yourself, not planning for the future of the organization, not evaluating, not prayerfully considering the development of your team. You are only thinking about today if you don’t invest time in the “important, but not urgent.”

Martin Luther said, “a Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.” We are servants first because He first served us. But we don’t serve well if we enable unnecessary chaos.

> Read more from Eric.

Tags: Eisenhower Matrix, Eric Geiger, servant leader, strategic leader

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Planning, Strategy, and the Eisenhower Matrix

by: Eric Geiger

0

Tweet

Dwight Eisenhower is noted as saying, “What is important is seldom urgent, and what is urgent is seldom important.” He is credited with the quote because of his emphasis on planning and strategy. From this quote, the Eisenhower matrix was born, which Stephen Covey later popularized. Here is my sketch of it:

The matrix has four quadrants:

1. Urgent, Important: These are things that must be handled now and include ongoing execution, important conversations, and necessary interruptions. We will spend much of our lives in this quadrant, as these are things we must do, things we are honored to do.
2. Important, Not Urgent: This is where leaders do their strategic planning and most thoughtful and creative work. Wise leaders carve out time and energy to invest in this type of work. They plan for this time so they may plan for the future, prepare, and work closely with teams.
3. Not Important, Not Urgent: These are unnecessary distractions that provide little or no value. Wise leaders constantly look to stop doing these things.
4. Urgent, Not Important: These are urgent tasks that come up but can be handled by someone else or should be handled by someone else because another is more qualified or ultimately responsible for the urgent matter. In other words, it should not be of deep importance to you. These items should be delegated or outsourced.

As I have led and watched others lead, here are three thoughts for leaders:

Take time to plan work, not just do work.

Instead of thinking strategically, many leaders run chaotically in a plethora of directions. The result of not investing ample time in Quadrant I is chaos, wasted energy, and mindless execution. If you never spend time in Quadrant I, you are unable to process and learn from all the activity, and you lack the ability to plan for the future.

The unnecessary robs energy from the important.

It is really Quadrant III that steals the important energy from leaders, energy that is needed for Quadrant I and Quadrant II. As Peter Drucker stated, “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” Leaders who don’t take time to evaluate what shouldn’t be done in the first place continue to waste time and energy on the unimportant.

The urgent and important can overwhelm.

Many leaders carry resentment and fatigue for the activities that fall into Quadrant II—the urgent and important that constantly comes up. But Quadrant II is significant, and much of the impact we make happens in this quadrant. In Quadrant II are unplanned conversations with people who need our counsel, unplanned crises that need our leadership, and important tasks that get the work done. So that the important and urgent don’t crush us, leaders must appropriate energy from Quadrant III and Quadrant IV.

> Read more from Eric here.

Tags: Eisenhower, Eisenhower Matrix, Eric Geiger, Planning, Strategy

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Three Critical Changes the Growing Church Must Make

by: Eric Geiger

2

Tweet

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges leaders in growing churches face is the sense of failing to meet expectations, particularly of some who were in the church when the church was not as large as she currently is. Here are a couple of examples from recent conversations with church leaders:

Example A:

Some members of a church of 2,100 in attendance expect the senior pastor to visit them if they are in the hospital. These members were in the church when it was 250-300 people and that is how the pastor led during that season. Other members in the same church would never even think their senior pastor would or should be at the hospital for their appendectomy or bout with kidney stones. In fact, when a pastor calls these folks, they are blown away “that we have such a relational pastor.” What some view as a calloused leader, others view as a compassionate one.

Example B:

Some members of a church of 500 in attendance are surprised to learn that the student ministry bought a new sound system. In the past, when the church was just getting started, each of these types of decisions was discussed in a quarterly meeting, and some of the members remember those days. Now, it seems, “decisions are just made with no communication.” Newer members in this church never complain that a sound system purchase should be discussed, nor does it seem they want to endure long meetings to discuss those types of decisions. What some view as an essential directional decision, others view as an issue of execution.

How do we make sense of the difference in perspective? A wise pastor once told me that for many people “in their minds, the church is always the size it was when they first joined.” In other words, in the minds of many people, the church should still function like the church did when they joined.

The reality is that a growing church must change some ways in which she functions. And if she doesn’t, her growth will be hampered.

A church should not change or evolve doctrinally, as a church should stand on the “faith delivered once for all to the saints.” Nor must a church change her ministry philosophy and mission in her local community. I am simply suggesting that as a church grows, if a church grows, how she functions in at least these three areas will need to change.

1. The expectations on the senior pastor

As a church grows, it is illogical for a pastor to perform every wedding, lead every funeral, and visit every hospital. Some would wisely argue that regardless of church size, the biblical mandate on a pastor is not to “do the ministry” anyway but to equip others for ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12). But from a logical vantage point, as a church grows, the senior pastor’s role will need to adjust. While remaining connected to people and the community, the pastor will focus more and more time on teaching, on staff development, and on the overarching direction of the church.

2. Decision-making

As a church grows, how she makes decisions will need to change. For example, as a church hires more specialized staff, some of the decisions related to ministry execution should be entrusted to those staff members. They are both trained and equipped for their realms of responsibility and deeply connected to their ministry areas. This is not to say that an oversight group (board, elder team, senior staff, etc.) no longer stewards the overall direction, doctrine, and ministry approach of the church but that many decisions will be pushed to leaders who shepherd groups of people within the church.

 3. Communication to the church

As a church grows, communication to the broader body will likely need to change. For example, group leaders in a church of 70 who once stood up at the end of the service to invite new folks to their group likely won’t be able to do so in a church of 700 as there are now lots of groups.

Of course, change is challenging and inevitably results in tension as some people’s expectations will not always be met. Ironically, some of the unfulfilled expectations are ones the church helped set years ago. If a church continues to grow, the tension will continually be there. Wise leaders teach and remind people to hold tightly to the doctrine of the church and the ministry philosophy that gives the church her identity but to hold loosely to the functions that will/should be adaptable.

For a more thorough read on church-size dynamics, Tim Keller has a helpful piece that can be downloaded here.

>> Read more from Eric here.

Tags: Eric Geiger, Growing Church, Leadership Expectations, Tim Keller

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Creature of the Word

by: Eric Geiger

0

Tweet

The Reformers viewed the gospel as not merely one thing among many in the life of a church but rather the means by which the church exists. When the gospel is rightly declared and applied to God’s people, the church becomes “a creature of the Word.” She understands, embraces, and lives out the reality of Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection in more than her doctrinal statement. The gospel impacts all the church is and does.

Creature of the Word lays out this concept in full, first examining the rich, scripture-based beauty of a Jesus-centered church, then clearly providing practical steps toward forming a Jesus-centered church. Authors Matt Chandler, Eric Geiger, and Josh Patterson write what will become a centering discussion piece for those whose goal is to be part of a church that has its theology, culture, and practice completely saturated in the gospel.

The Creature of the Word Church Campaign is a year-long movement of examination and growth. The hope is for churches to become more centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Broken into 12 parts, each corresponding to a chapter in Creature of the Word, the campaign is designed to help churches audit and assess their various ministries, from preschool to the pulpit, in order to be saturated with the Word of God in all that they do.

It won’t be an easy process because we all have challenges and struggles, but we urge you to open up your life and ministry for evaluation this coming year. To take part in the campaign, we invite you to work through the monthly assessments and join the conversation on our Facebook page.

To download the monthly assessments, click on your selection below.

Go to the Creature of the Word Facebook page

Order the paperback version of Creature of the Word here

Order the Kindle version of Creature of the Word here

Creature of the Word Church Campaign Downloads:

• Campaign Introduction
• Campaign Meeting Outline
• Chapter 1 – A People Formed
• Chapter 2 – The Creature Worships
• Chapter 3 – The Creature in Community
• Chapter 4 – The Creature Serves
• Chapter 5 – The Creature Multiplies
• Chapter 6 – Jesus-Centered Culture
• Chapter 7 – Preaching the Word
• Chapter 8 – Pulpit to Preschool (and Puberty Too)
• Chapter 9 – The Jesus-Centered Leader
• Chapter 10 – Jesus-Centered Flower Committee
• Chapter 11 – Jesus-Centered Contextualization
• Chapter 12 – Jesus-Centered Ministry

Jesus changes the game. In so many ways Jesus-centered ministry is counterintuitive to our natural thinking. We have seen that Jesus says life only comes through death, and that gain only increases through loss. The game is to decrease so that Jesus can increase.

Tags: Creature of the Word, Creature of the Word Church Campaign, Eric Geiger, Jesus-Centered Ministry, Josh Patterson, Matt Chandler

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Culture >

Are You Leading for the Good of Those You Serve?

by: Eric Geiger

0

Tweet

Jony Ive is the senior vice president of design at Apple and is known as the great design mind behind the products at Apple. In a rare interview, Jony shares some lessons he learned from working with Steve Jobs. In the interview, he recounts a conversation with Steve where Steve rebukes him for leading to be approved, for wanting approval from his team more than anything else.

According to Jony, he wondered if Steve could “moderate” his comments about his frustration with a product. When asked for the reason for the request, Jony expressed the desire for moderation because “he cared about his team.” Steve challenged him and remarked:

You are just really vain. You just want people to like you. I am surprised at you. I thought you really held the work up as most important, not how you believe you are perceived by other people.

Jony, and I assume Steve, don’t use the term idolatry, but the confrontation centers on a common leadership idol—the idol of approval. When we lead for approval, we really are vain. We are leading for ourselves, to feel needed and appreciated. While we can mask our pride by insisting our decisions are really for the team, if approval is our ultimate goal, then we really aren’t leading for the sake of others.

Of course, I am not suggesting that the product, ministry, program, or initiative is more important than people. We should not exchange the idol of approval for the idol of success, the idol of accomplishment. But many leaders struggle with leading to be approved instead of leading for what’s best, for the health of those they serve, for the mission of their team/organization.

Often times, “I care really deeply about my team” can really mean “I just want my team to really like me.” Or “I am just protecting my team” really means “I need my team to love me because my soul needs that.”

Jony Ive says he was crushed because he knew Steve was right. Some leaders need the confrontation that Steve Jobs provided Jony Ive. Are you leading so people will approve of you or are you leading for the good of those you serve?

>> More from Eric.

Tags: Eric Geiger, Johnny Ives, Steve Jobs, leadership approval

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Three Common Mistakes Pastors Make

by: Eric Geiger

1

Tweet

I was honored to discuss leadership on a panel at the Southern Baptist Pastors Conference with Greg Matte, Rodney Woo, and Jack Graham. People submitted questions beforehand, and one of the questions that Pastor Greg sent my way was “What are the most common mistakes pastors make?” Here are three:

1. NOT OFFERING CLARITY

Marcus Buckingham said, “Clarity is the preoccupation of the effective leader. If you do nothing else as a leader, be clear.” Wise church leaders clarify, guard, and preach the essentials over and over again.

Most importantly, pastors must be clear on the theology that serves as the foundation for the church. Without theological clarity, churches will drift from the faith that was delivered once and for all to the saints (Jude 3). Without continually reminding people of the gospel, a church will no longer stand on the strong foundation of the faith (1 Corinthians 15:1-2). Or as D. A. Carson has stated, “To assume the gospel in one generation is to lose it in the next.”

Pastors must also be continually clear on the ministry philosophy and direction of the church. People long to have a direction painted for them, to see how all that the church does is built on the theology and philosophy of ministry that drives the church. Pastors who fail to offer directional clarity leave a massive vacuum of leadership. Consequently, others will step in with competing visions of what the church should be and do, and the church will move in a plethora of directions, unsure of who she really is.

2. UNDERESTIMATING THE POWER OF CULTURE

By culture, I am not referring to the ethnic or socio-economic mix in the church (though this is important too). I am referring to the shared values and beliefs that undergird all the church does. Peter Drucker is credited for famously saying, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” He was not diminishing the importance of a wise strategy, but he was stating the overpowering strength of culture on an organization.

If a church leader attempts to implement a strategy without first addressing the culture, if the two are in conflict with one another, the strategy is doomed before it even launches. Culture will win. And while the doctrinal confession in a church is absolutely critical, if the culture is in conflict with the confession, the culture will trump the confession.

For example… A church has the doctrinal confession that all believers are priests and ministers because Jesus’ sacrificial death for us tore the veil of separation and His Spirit has empowered all believers. But that same church has a long-standing culture that the “real ministers” are the professional clergy—that whenever a need arises, it lands on a staff member’s plate. Thus, when a tragedy occurs or someone needs counseling, it is the culture that drives the behavior, not the doctrinal confession.

Wise church leaders will continually check the culture and, by God’s grace, seek to bring it into deep alignment with the theology and ministry philosophy of the church.

3. SWITCHING STRATEGIES TOO FREQUENTLY

Many churches never realize the full potential of their plans or strategies because they switch them too frequently. They abandon their direction for a new direction and confuse the people as to where the church is really headed. Switching strategies too frequently is really a symptom of not possessing or providing clarity and not having a culture that is deeply connected to the theology and philosophy of the church. Continually switching strategies will harm the overall effectiveness of the pastor’s leadership.

Read more from Eric here.

Tags: Culture, Eric Geiger, Leadership Engine, Staff, Strategy

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >