- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I had an experience with Church leadership last night that still has me pondering exactly how I feel about it. By “leadership,” I don’t mean “the leaders of the Church.” I mean leadership in the way business or the government defines it – the qualities of one who leads others. Yesterday we had an area-wide broadcast from the area presidency for all members of the ward and stake councils; so, bishoprics, clerks, exec-secs, HPG, EQP, RS pres, primary pres, etc. At the beginning of the broadcast, a message popped up on the screen with an email address and a statement that the area presidency wanted each stake presidient to email the area president with an accountability listing of every individual, by name, from each ward, branch and stake who was at the meeting and who wasn’t. If an individual was to have been at the meeting but wasn’t, the area president wanted details as to why the person was absent. The 90 minute meeting then proceeded as you might expect – a few small nuggets of wisdom buried within mounds of pablum.
As I’ve noted on this forum before, I have served in the armed forces. Now I definitely don’t want the Church run like an Army unit. However, I think a principle of leadership that I would apply in the armed forces is equally valid here. If a brigade commander held a commander’s call and wanted all of his troops there to hear what he had to say, but had to resort to such draconian tactics to ensure compliance with his orders, I’d say that commander has already lost his moral authority to lead his men (and when I use the term “authority,” I’m not refering to priesthood or office, I just mean the standing and bearing that leads others to follow your directions). So as I sat there at the start of that meeting, I just couldn ‘t help but thinking, “Has Elder So-And-So so thoroughly lost his leadership and authority with the people of this area that he has to resort to threats of shaming and reproach in order to get folks to do their duty?” And is this naming-and-shaming strategy of leadership even appropriate in the Church? The point of the meeting, during which I almost laughed out loud, came about 15 minutes in when the first counsellor to the area president gave this quote: “Of course, we have to give everyone the freedom of exercising their own free agency.” Oh, the irony! I’ve had leaders on whose orders I have and would put my life in danger to carry out their orders — based solely on their moral authority. I’ve had Church leaders who inspired me to greater devotion to my duty. Not one of these great leaders commanded such obedience and devotion out of me based on my fear of them. It was based on my respect for them — who they are, what they do, what they’re about.
So here’s my question – what types of leadership are actually effective in the Church, and which aren’t? What types of leadership are completely inappropriate for Church leaders? And perhaps most importantly, is there any way to let leaders know that the way their leading is actually counter productive?
What??? Emailing the Area President in regards to who didn’t attend a Saturday church meeting? What would the punishment be, losing your volunteer church position you probably don’t want in the first place? I can’t really answer your question Kumahito about church leadership because I view leadership differently than I think most in the church do. I don’t see what “leadership” volunteer church leaders have or exhibit. Almost every other guy is President of something at church including myself. IMHO, I think leaders are like the young men in Afganistan fighting, not some dude in the ward drunk on his volunteer position.
Hi kumahito, Interesting topic. One thing that I’ve started to realise is that the call of a General Authority is not purely based on finding the most spiritually minded people, but also the most successful and willing to serve.
We all have talents and abilities, but the church is a multi-billion dollar organisation with multi-millions of participants. The men they select to run it are almost all people with a strong track record in their chosen career. There aren’t many road sweepers in the quorums of the Seventy.
While it’s understandable that the church would call the most visibly successful to run an organisation with departments having million dollar budgets, it’s a shame when that spills over into the ecclesiastical side as it appears to have in your meeting.
I agree that there’s a huge irony to preaching agency while demonstrating militant accountability. What’s the saying about ‘your actions speak so loud I can’t hear what you’re saying.’
When I was a branch president I was in an area where they had started an initiative to report ‘Key performance indicators’ and ‘Feeder indicators.’
I threw myself fully into it. The process really ‘switched me on.’ I analysed the data and over time identified the branch strengths and weaknesses.
One month I did a 40 minute presentation to the branch council on how we were doing… even down to what percentage of activity someone needed for full re-activation (20-25%).
After the meeting my wise 85 year old Clerk took me to one side and said “You were loosing them in there. Save the fancy numbers for my reports; the branch council is their meeting, not your meeting, and they came to talk about their friends and neighbours. Not numbers and trend lines.”
It was a lesson learned and I packed my powerpoint charts away.
Quote:So here’s my question – what types of leadership are actually effective in the Church, and which aren’t? What types of leadership are completely inappropriate for Church leaders? And perhaps most importantly, is there any way to let leaders know that the way their leading is actually counter productive?
So many different models of leadership and many styles within the models.
I can only think of a few times when leadership was taught or mentioned in units I’ve been in. Once we tried to teach the YM/YW about delegation. Usually what we hear is lead by example.
Now trying to get back into Army mode. It’s hard after being out almost 13 years even with over 20 years of service.
Authoritarian or dictatorial does not work. Delegative does not always work but does need to be a part of the style used. Democratic does not work but elements of it should be
One model is situational leadership. The style needs to be adaptable and change according to how the leader interacts with the led.
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_44.htm It can work pretty good.
So while I was trying compose this others might have responded.
If you go through the list of GAs, most of them have a strong background. Especially the younger ones. Some of the older generation have less professional backgrounds, but the younger ones do: – Jeffrey R. Holland “attended Yale University and earned a second master’s degree, this time in American Studies, and later a Ph.D in the same subject… In 1974, Holland was appointed Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University. He went from that position to being the eleventh commissioner of the Church Educational System, a position he held from 1976 to 1980. He was then appointed president of BYU… The most notable achievement of his presidency was the founding of the BYU Jerusalem Center. He also led a $100,000,000 fundraising campaign.”
– Henry B. Eyring “received a BS degree in physics from the University of Utah. He went on to earn both Masters and Doctoral degress in Business Administration from Harvard Business School, before embarking on a career in academia. Eyring was an associate professor of business at the Stanford Graduate School of Business from 1962 to 1971. He was also a Sloan Visiting Faculty Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Eyring served as president of Ricks College from 1971 to 1977″
– Dieter F. Uchtdorf “at 29 years old, Uchtdorf had reached the rank of Captain with Lufthansa. He was appointed in 1975 as head of Lufthansa’s new Arizona Training School, then in 1980 he was made head chief pilot of cockpit crews and then senior vice president of flight operations in 1982.”
– David A. Bednar “was the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies in the Sam M. Walton College of Business from 1987 to 1992 and was then the director of the Management Decision-Making Lab from 1992 to 1997. In 1994, he was recognized as the outstanding teacher at the University of Arkansas and received the Burlington Northern Foundation Award for Excellence in Teaching. He has twice been the recipient of the Outstanding Teacher Award in the College of Business Administration.
Bednar then served as the president of Ricks College/Brigham Young University–Idaho from 1997 to 2004 in Rexburg, Idaho.”
– Quentin L. Cook “graduated from Utah State University in 1963 with a bachelor’s degree in political science and from Stanford Law School in 1966. Cook worked for 27 years as a corporate attorney, becoming a managing partner of Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson and Horn in the San Francisco Bay area. Later in his career he served as president and chief executive officer of California Healthcare System (CHS) for three years and then as vice chairman of Sutter Health System.”
– D. Todd Christofferson “earned a bachelor’s degree from Brigham Young University and a J.D. from Duke University School of Law. As a lawyer, Christofferson worked in Washington, D.C.; Nashville, Tennessee; Herndon, Virginia; and Charlotte, North Carolina. Christofferson was the associate general counsel for NationsBank in Charlotte and was the volunteer chairman of Affordable Housing of Nashville, Tennessee.”
– Neil L. Andersen “graduated from Brigham Young University and earned an MBA from Harvard Business School. He later lived and worked in Tampa, Florida, where he was the vice president of the Morton Plant Health System.”
– Gary E. Stevenson (Presiding Bishop) “worked as the chief operating officer of ICON Health & Fitness. He has also served on the Marriot School of Management National Advisory Council and the Utah State University Foundation Board.”
– Ronald A. Rasband (Presidency of the Seventy, Senior President) “was appointed president and chief operating officer of Huntsman Chemical Corporation. In this capacity he worked closely with Jon Huntsman, Sr. He was later a member of the corporation’s board of directors.”
I could go on… But you get the picture.
mackay11 wrote:After the meeting my wise 85 year old Clerk took me to one side and said “You were loosing them in there. Save the fancy numbers for my reports; the branch council is their meeting, not your meeting, and they came to talk about their friends and neighbours. Not numbers and trend lines.”
That’s an incredibly wise ward clerk. Thanks for the comment.
Leadership and supervising or directing are not the same thing. Leadership in a volunteer organization is different. In the military you must follow orders or pay the price. The price could be a loss of privileges, pay, rank, discharge, or confinement. In my government job I see a lot of poor leadership. I can try to train my leaders which hasn’t been successful or I can take other means. Ultimately I must accept it or leave. If I don’t do what I’m told I can be punished after certain steps are taken. Most of my employment has been in government jobs.
My little bit of civilian time has also seen poor leadership. When not protected by a union it has been toe the line or suffer the consequences, getting fired. There are leaders/supervisors out there that care about their people.
Just because you have been a president of a company or have years of being a supervisor does not mean you are a good leader. Leadership is a skill and an art. I would venture to say that most supervisors do not have leadership training.
Mackay, sorry, the list of GA bios does not convince me they are good leaders.
Thoreau, I don’t think that was mackay11’s point. I think it was just that many of the leaders have a professional, measurement-matrix-driven background, so it’s natural for them to operate in that mode when dealing with any organizational responsibility. I might be wrong about that, but it’s how I read the comment.
I agree Ray. As time passes, church leadership does seem to becoming more populated with Ivy League graduates and business executives.
Kumahito, thanks for sharing this. I am alarmed by this if it is indicative of any sort of new trend. It displays such a members exist to follow our orders attitude. What if someone were actually obeying counsel from long ago by Spencer W. Kimball, that you are to be out doing your home teaching or visiting teaching before all other callings? What if someone was helping someone, but it was a confidential situation so the reason for nonattendance at the meeting can not really be explained to someone else? What if a struggling member was in a leadership position within the ward in order to grow them and they are still growing? What do you think the area president intends to do with the information of who was not in attendance? This is why the church needs a HR type department, so the troops aka regular old membership can share how they feel about this type of situation without being labeled. Leadership should be grateful that the membership accomplishes what it does in this economic climate. Can anyone find a positive reason for this type of leadership happening at this level? Old-Timer wrote:Thoreau, I don’t think that was mackay11’s point. I think it was just that many of the leaders have a professional, measurement-matrix-driven background, so it’s natural for them to operate in that mode when dealing with any organizational responsibility.
I might be wrong about that, but it’s how I read the comment.
OK, I can see that.
🙂 Quote:Can anyone find a positive reason for this type of leadership happening at this level?
In the case of the email request, no; in the case of professional experience and degrees, yes.
mackay11 wrote:One thing that I’ve started to realise is that the call of a General Authority is not purely based on finding the most spiritually minded people, but also the most successful and willing to serve.
^ yes, agree 100%.
To me the Q12 and FP are administrator-prophets. We all probably have a different opinion about what percentage of each role they play on a daily basis. Also in my experience the best bishops are effective administrators and spirituality plays an important secondary position, and doctrinal knowledge is almost never used. The best bishops (again in my limited experience) readily adopt the “council method” and rarely make sweeping statements and rarely simply dictate local policy.
A large, international organization like the LDS church requires the expertise of professional administrators with deep knowledge of organizational behavior, finances, and marketing. A skeptic might say this is evidence the church isn’t true. A believe might say a prophet can be both an administrator and a prophet.
Kumahito wrote:I had an experience with Church leadership last night that still has me pondering exactly how I feel about it. By “leadership,” I don’t mean “the leaders of the Church.” I mean leadership in the way business or the government defines it – the qualities of one who leads others…a message popped up on the screen with an email address and a statement that the area presidency wanted each stake presidient to email the area president with an accountability listing of every individual, by name, from each ward, branch and stake who was at the meeting and who wasn’t. If an individual was to have been at the meeting but wasn’t, the area president wanted details as to why the person was absent…
So here’s my question – what types of leadership are actually effective in the Church, and which aren’t?What types of leadership are completely inappropriate for Church leaders? If someone is trying to tell me what to do my first thought is generally going to be, “Why should I and what will happen if I don’t?” For example, I can see why it would be a good idea for me to try to stay on my manager’s good side but if my bishop thinks I’m a slacker then I’m not sure that is really such a bad thing. It looks like the primary reason why we are expected to believe and do many things in the Church is mostly because that’s what we have always done and/or simply because the scriptures or Church leaders said so. Sometimes that just isn’t enough to get people to really buy into it and feel good about what we are trying to accomplish because it often seems like nothing more than pointless busywork and there really isn’t much of a sensible reason behind it. Regardless of their leadership style I think one of the biggest problems in the Church is that Church leaders have become so accustomed to seeing members outwardly agree with whatever they are asked to accept without much resistance that they forget to even consider whether or not some of this is really such a great idea to begin with (Matthew 15:14).
mackay11 wrote:
After the meeting my wise 85 year old Clerk took me to one side and said “You were loosing them in there. Save the fancy numbers for my reports; the branch council is their meeting, not your meeting, and they came to talk about their friends and neighbours. Not numbers and trend lines.”
I love this… And he was right, its all about the people and friendships.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.