Leaders, Drivers, and Losers.
by Ed Dickerson
We had a brand new conference president, addressing the workers for the first time. “One of the most important things about any organization,” he began, “is unity.” I knew right then we were in trouble. It was more than thirty years ago, and I was not yet quite thirty years old, but already I had experienced real leadership—and this wasn’t it.
As we discussed the situation later, my wife said, “I don’t get it. Wasn’t he right? Isn’t unity important in an organization?”
She had me there. Still, I knew something was wrong, and time would sadly confirm my initial judgment. The new conference president brought in new department heads, one of whom, my boss, declared, “P.R. is everything.” Things went quickly downhill from there.
When I decided to leave the conference two years later, the “P.R. is everything” man asked, “Am I going to get blamed for you leaving?” I shook my head in disbelief. It hadn’t occurred to me that anyone should be blamed. But I suppose when P.R. is everything. . . .
Years later, when the Governor of my state asked, “Where’s Ed? He gets the first pen. This bill would not have passed without his leadership,” I was gratified, but surprised. I hadn’t given leadership a thought. My only concern had been how to get enough support, both within the legislature and in the larger community, to bring relief to the state’s families.
My experiences, in business, politics, and the church, have given me the opportunity to study and experience leaders and leadership in a number of settings. Over the years, I have formulated a few observations. I realize that these observations have implications for the current situation in the world church, and in the coming election. But that’s not the primary motivation for mentioning them now. I’m focused on the great need for leadership in our homes, churches, businesses, and communities.
Those who seek or claim leadership fall into three broad categories: Leaders, drivers, losers.
Leaders lead. They don’t talk about leadership, or unity, or obstacles. They talk about goals, objectives, aspirations, and courses of action. They understand that unity comes from shared purpose, goals, and aspirations. They focus attention not on themselves or their efforts, but on the shared purpose, the goal to be reached, and the aspirations which we all share. They mentor, model, coach, and explain. Jesus was an exception in one way: to be like Him is our goal. But He recognized that leaders don’t rely on force. They lead and draw followers. So He said that if He was lifted up, He would draw followers. His sacrifice and example elevate and fuel our aspirations. Of course, not everyone will follow. That’s their choice. It may be because they are called to a different cause. Whatever their reasons, leaders do not demonize those who choose not to follow.
Leaders know that leaders do not drive. As Jacob said to Esau, “And he said unto him, my lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die.” Gen 33:13. People and animals that are driven suffer unnecessary casualties.
Drivers talk about unity, about loyalty, mainly because they cannot inspire it. Where Leaders appeal to the “better angels of our nature,” drivers use fear and shame. If you’re not loyal, shame on you. If you don’t sign on to our program, you will be left behind. Drivers drive. Drivers declare the inevitable casualties that occur “disloyal,” or “unworthy.” Drivers think it’s all about accomplishing tasks, whatever the cost. Leaders know that in striving together, we accomplish tasks we could not have originally envisioned. Drivers sometimes accomplish tasks, but usually end up defeating the purpose those accomplishments were designed to aid.
And finally, Losers. Lots of wannabe drivers end up as Losers. Losers complain about obstacles, about opposition, about lack of loyalty and failure to acknowledge authority. But of course, if there were no obstacles, no opposition, leadership would not be necessary. Losers demonstrate they know nothing about leadership at all. Leaders cast obstacles and opposition as challenges, as opportunities to achieve despite difficulty. Losers view obstacles and opposition as excuses for failure.
Losers have a thousand explanations for their plight, when the truth is a vacuum of leadership. Ahab is a clear example of a loser. Dominated by his wife, pouting when he’s disappointed, he’s quick to assign blame to Elijah, “You’re the one troubling Israel!”
I could not fully articulate this thirty years ago, but I sensed its truth. The conference president who wanted to talk about unity was not a leader, he was a driver. He said “we need unity,” but he meant “you need to be loyal.” Many a driver/pastor has told a congregation, “We need revival,” when what he means is “you need revival.” Many a loser/pastor has complained, “The previous pastor left this church in a mess,” or “The elders didn’t support me.”
I don’t mean to leave the impression that leaders always succeed. In the broken world we live in, that will not happen. In my experience, intervention of a non-leader at a higher level in the organization constitutes a major reason leaders are not allowed to succeed.
For example, I have seen church members with deep pockets persuade a conference president (who happened to have a ‘driver’ leadership style) to attempt to intervene in local church elections when results challenged entrenched power at the local level. When one pastor refused to cooperate with this clearly inappropriate action, he was replaced with a driver who would obey.
And that points to part of the problem. Drivers and Losers at higher levels of authority tend to be suspicious of Leaders below them. It’s not so much that they recognize these subordinates as possessing qualities or character that the superiors lack; it’s more that leadership always threatens the status quo. Drivers and Losers are always acutely aware of anything that might cause blame to fall on them, and disturbing the status quo certainly falls into that category. So the current system is self-perpetuating.
The funny thing is, both sides agree about one thing: the status quo in the church is not acceptable. It will take leadership to improve things. But I must say again, my focus is not at the top levels. My concern is for the lack of leadership primarily at the conference and local church levels. Leaders don’t suddenly learn how to lead when promoted to high office. They learn it at home, at the local church, or not at all.
My own experience in one of the longest run best bureaucratic organizations in human history, the army, is that it is actually good to have both drivers and leaders.
Drivers exist in the Senior NCOs, the Sergeants and Sergeant-Majors, who indeed use shame and fear to keep the group united and going forward despite the dangers. Armies that have strong NCOs (the British army probably being the best, going back to the Centurion class in the ancient Roman Army), undoubtedly perform better than armies with a weak or near non-existent professional NCO class (such as the old Soviet Army).
However, in agreement with Ed’s point, there is a reason armies are not entirely comprised of NCOs. NCOs can push soldiers forward through fear, but they don’t lead – and fear generally is not enough.
Leaders exist in the officers, starting with your most junior officers such as the Lieutenants, and up to your Generals at the very top. Junior officers, such as Lieutenants and Captains especially are at the ‘pointy end’ of leadership, and are paid to be the first man out of the trench. Fantastic leaders, such as Rommel, deliberately found the most critical part of the battle, and put themselves there in the thick of danger. For paratroopers, it is the officers who must jump out of the plane first. You get the point.
The best officers lead through service. For example, in the British and Australian armies (not sure if it is the same in the US army and elsewhere), in the chow line, you eat in reverse order of rank. Your men eat first, then your own NCOs, and then you the officer last. Your men’s needs come before your own.
Thus, in the army, the soldiers should be sandwiched between officers in the front and NCOs at the back. In fact, this is exactly how a unit looks light on parade.
Finally re suspicion, I agree that good leaders deliberately train their subordinates to take over from them if they are taken out of action. Good leaders also exercise ‘directive control’ (I can’t remember the formal German military term for it), which means giving a clear intent of your objective to a subordinate, but trusting the subordinate to work out for themselves how to fulfill your objective. Good leaders take advice from their NCOs and subordinates, and don’t feel threatened by them.
Bad leaders indeed are power hungry, hide information, make themselves indispensable, and micromanage subordinates. Bad leaders don’t take advice from their NCOs and subordinates, and do feel threatened by them.
As Ed finally notes, I wonder how our own local churches stack up against the military? In the military, people take leadership and unity seriously, because people’s lives might literally be on the line. In the Church, it is only people’s eternal lives on the line, yet we what attitude to we adopt?
If you want to see who is a leader, just look and see who is following whom. Find a group and you'll see the leader. Unfortunately, I've lost count of the people in church administration who were picked for positions of authority on the basis of factors other than leadership. A dramatic study in this may be seen at any confierence of union constituency meeting where the members of the nominating committee are often selected because they can be trusted to put forward the names of those either currently in positions of authority or only those names whom the next administrative level of the church considers "safe."
My father-in-law was an SDA pastor for fifty years. He organized his correspondence which included a copy of his letter along with the return mail from others and in this way I was able to follow the conversations and get a clear understanding of what they were experiencing and talking about. It was a revelation for me to take in a panoramic view of the politics among the rank and file as well as their "leaders". Some of the most vibrant letters were from his pastor-friends – amazing insights that revealed that the majority of conference presidents were drivers in the extreme. Intimidation and shame were couched in inuendo – ingathering, tithe, combined budget were all hot topics. Some of the conversations showed a tragic side of how the local pastors were being treated and how frustrated they were. It is sad when a leader is being led by a driver!!! The question is – is there any fuel left in the tank to then try to "go lead the flock". In the end they were all well-loved by their churches – they found their way around the frustrating politics. It reminds me of what President Obama recently said about the gridlock of trying to work with Congress – he has found it necessary to work his way around them to get the job done.
But the U.S. president does not hold your employment future in his hands as does a conference leader.
My father was also a pastor, and I saw him almost broken by the treatment of leaders who had him moved to another city to hold an evangelistic campaign and then after he had moved his family, pulled the rug out from under him and left him high and dry. Fotunately, he was called to another conference and no longer had to serve under that president.
Elaine, tell that to 23 million unemployed Americans. Tell that to folks in my business who may lose their jobs, or be cut back to part time if Obama raises taxes on the upper middle class. Believe me, government has far greater power to coercively impact people's lives than conference presidents.
As to Bea's concluding sentence, somehow I don't think Ed is suggesting that a good leader tramples on established democratic processes, and disdains compromise and consensus building in order to advance ideological agendas. President Obama's autocratic style of leadership is far more evocative of tyrannical church administrators than of true leaders.
The past four years have been a perfect illustration that the president is not all powerful and cannot grant full employment. Especially when a congress that vowed at his inauguration that they would do everything in their power to make him a one-term president. Grover Norquist twisted the arms of all the Repubs to sign a "No Taxes" pledge and they obeyed, voting down nearly every bill that included stimulus to the economy.
The president can only persuade. The recent findings that the corporations were holding $600 billion and doing nothing to add new jobs is an indication that there are more forces behind the scenes than simple unemployment seems to indicate.
In addition, the outsourcing of jobs overseas cannot be controlled by the president. His powers are limited; which is why it is ridiculous to blame him for every woe befallen man. He inherited the largest debt yet, and immediately after taking office the bottom fell out. So who is responsible for the Great Recession? The Wall Street Regulators lied about the ratings of corporations allowing them to continue fleecing customers while betting the house's money on losses. The game is rigged!
Nate, I don't know how many presidents you have lived under but I doubt that as many as I have. Some are good, some are better, some are worse. We must make a choice and now, even the Republicans are very wary, and speaking out against the gaffes Romney continues to make. Let's not even consider "Lyin' Ryan" who doesn't know the truth from…. Both he and Romney say one thing today and something entirely different then next day, apparently forgetting what they say and so it continues to be piled one on another lies. Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol, George F. Will are really worried about the coming election.
They need to do what our contender for PM has done. He has been honest with the electorate and informed us that promises come in two varieties: core promises that he will definitely keep, and non-core promises that will depend on circumstances and what is expedient. He has pointed out a few 'core promises', but is very reluctant to say which promises are not 'core promises'. It seems he holds for himself the right to choose which are or are not 'core promises'. So we have been duely warned that, with the exception of a couple of things (which may change), we cannot believe a word he says. You have to admire an honest politician, even if you would rather vote for Gaddafi than see him as PM.
The past four years have been a perfect illustration that the president is not all powerful and cannot grant full employment. Especially when a congress that vowed at his inauguration that they would do everything in their power to make him a one-term president. Grover Norquist twisted the arms of all the Repubs to sign a "No Taxes" pledge and they obeyed, voting down nearly every bill that included stimulus to the economy.
The president can only persuade. The recent findings that the corporations were holding $600 billion and doing nothing to add new jobs is an indication that there are more forces behind the scenes than simple unemployment seems to indicate.
In addition, the outsourcing of jobs overseas cannot be controlled by the president. His powers are limited; which is why it is ridiculous to blame him for every woe befallen man. He inherited the largest debt yet, and immediately after taking office the bottom fell out. So who is responsible for the Great Recession? The Wall Street Regulators lied about the ratings of corporations allowing them to continue fleecing customers while betting the house's money on losses. The game is rigged!
Nate, I don't know how many presidents you have lived under but I doubt that as many as I have. Some are good, some are better, some are worse. We must make a choice and now, even the Republicans are very wary, and speaking out against the gaffes Romney continues to make. Let's not even consider "Lyin' Ryan" who doesn't know the truth from…. Both he and Romney say one thing today and something entirely different then next day, apparently forgetting what they say and so it continues to be piled one on another lies. Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol, George F. Will are really worried about the coming election.
You are so right, Elaine! Why how could I have been so stupid? You may have left the SDA Church, but you certainly continue to drink fundamentalist Kool Aid beverages. Your politics has become your religion.
I did not write this column as political commentary. It comes from my observations of leadership in politics, yes, but also in business, in sports, in the church, in communities.
At the same time, when someone insists on demonstrating the point, I can only appreciate their support.
To recap:
"Lots of wannabe drivers end up as Losers. Losers complain about obstacles, about opposition, about lack of loyalty and failure to acknowledge authority. But of course, if there were no obstacles, no opposition, leadership would not be necessary. Losers demonstrate they know nothing about leadership at all. Leaders cast obstacles and opposition as challenges, as opportunities to achieve despite difficulty. Losers view obstacles and opposition as excuses for failure.
Losers have a thousand explanations for their plight, when the truth is a vacuum of leadership. Ahab is a clear example of a loser. Dominated by his wife, pouting when he’s disappointed, he’s quick to assign blame to Elijah, “You’re the one troubling Israel!”"
Great response, Ed! Let he/she who has eyes open them and see the truth.
imo, this article expresses how some want a leader that will allow the followers to really lead themselves. This has been a problem since Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The term unity is easily said, but extremely difficult, when you have people that want to undermine the good of the plan with their own personal agenda. i.e Eve in the garden, she wanted more, her way, which invariably was Satans way. imo, if a leader comes to the table with a "there needs to be unity" plea, its because he has insight that the current "unity" is infact polished over disunity and a few feathers need ruffling or maybe need to be "shaken up"a bit for the good of the whole/elect.
Per Sis White…"I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen, and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this will cause a shaking among God’s people. The testimony of the True Witness has not been half heeded. The solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs has been lightly esteemed, if not entirely disregarded. This testimony must work deep repentance, and all that truly receive it will obey it and be purified.Counsels for the Church, Page 338, 339
In some cases, it could be the leaders eyes have been opened through a personal spirit-filled revival of their own (that is how Jesus works). The problem is everyone is not going to be on board at first, because some like their polished over "I think I am in need of nothing" religion Rev 3:17. Honestly, every living christian soul should take ownership of Rev 3:15-17 because it belongs to each one of us whether we like it or not, no one is excluded until we individually apply Rev 3:18,19. Those that love Christ with their whole heart wont be disobeying Christ by disrespecting authority, but humbly challenging self to know "is it I O Lord that makes you nauseous.. by my behavior, secret thought/actions/words I speak against your authority?We should be pleading in sack cloth and ashes (metaphorically), Lord what must I do to be in the first resurrection?"
1 Samuel 8:6-8 Israel was not happy with their "Leader", they wanted more. They shamefully wanted what the world had, rejecting The Leaders call for revival, reformation, unity, the holy spirit's latter rain which are Tll the testimonies of their Leader. Sadly, in the end it was the rebel followers that were the losers. Never The Leader or his devoted followers, even if that leader/follower stands alone in the word of God, he is the winner. Praise God for those that get it, who understand the beauty of the main "Leaders" testimony/words.
It becomes a problem when leaders try to micromanage. No need for explanation
of such leaders in the SDA church.
Excellent point, Elaine. To elaborate on Ed's point above, a bad and dangerous leader deludes himself by claiming that he is his brother's/sister's keeper, erroneously resting that delusion on Biblical authority, and then imposing that belief on a larger collective that he soothingly mesmerizes through the rhetoric of unity and equality. This overweening self-confidence and delusion of grandeur of course leads to micromanaging, since a "keeper" always keeps track of his charges and always knows better than they what is best for them.
Of course we're still talking only about SDA Church leaders, right???
As you say, Elaine, no need for explanation.
Elaine, imo a biblical definition for micromange is one who is a watcher. Good shepherds watch. He uses his "shepherd's watch box" to ward off danger from the flock. He watchs caringly over the flock leading them to the safety of the Chief Shepherd using the Chiefs example.