;)
Leadership is Like Littering… Kinda
Posted by Guest Author in Church & Missions
Guest author Josh Ellis serves as a Senior Consultant for the Union Baptist Association in Houston, TX, where he assists churches in demographic research, strategic planning, and scenario development. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Leadership Studies at Dallas Baptist University.
When I was growing up in Colorado, we hiked a lot. And we learned from an early age sayings like, “leave nature as you found it,” or “take only photographs, leave only footprints.” When it comes to nature, this is a great philosophy. When it comes to leadership, however, it is completely wrong. Are you leaving evidence that you were here?
When we speak of leadership development, or mentoring, or discipling, few people get anxious. After all, the New Testament is full of verses that expect us to pour into those who would come after us. Matthew 28:20 includes a general call to disciples that we should teach what we have been taught, and Ephesians 4:12 notes that we have been given pastors and teachers “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (NASB). In short, Christians are supposed to prepare those who would come after us.
So why is it that the idea of succession planning is such a taboo subject in the offices of our churches? The smarter companies of the business world understand that if a bus hits their CEO, the company needs a plan on how to continue in the CEO’s absence. Of course, as companies tap potential successors, the process often involves lawyers, secret meetings, and non-disclosure agreements. Succession planning is important business. The reason is simple: if the product is good and customers are still demanding their services, why should the company crumble in on itself when there is a leadership change due to resignation, retirement, or death?
Succession planning doesn’t have to mean “CEO replacement.” Succession planning is defined as “any effort to ensure the continued effective performance of an organization, division, department, or work group by making provision for the development, replacement, and strategic application of key people over time” (Rothwell, (2010). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and building talent from within (4th ed., p. 6). With the full definition realized, what could sound more ministry-related than the “strategic placement of key people over time?” Isn’t that what Jesus did as he prepared his disciples for life after Golgotha? How many did Paul leave in his wake so that the work of THE ministry—not Paul’s ministry—would continue after his death in Rome? If we called succession planning “legacy preparation,” would it be an easier pill to swallow?
While this is generally the part where pastors get fidgety, missionaries usually begin a never-ending chorus of “amens.” Missionaries tend to have very entrepreneurial training. In essence, they are in the business of starting businesses and spinning them off to be self-sufficient. Missionaries are trying to train up people who will do the work for one simple reason: the missionaries know they are leaving. Whether they are serving short terms or career lengths, missionaries are temporarily inserted into communities, and their work must survive beyond the length of their presence.
Pastors generally have real concerns about succession planning that usually manifest themselves in statements such as these:
1. “I plan to be here for a long time.” This is a defensible position, but plans change, desires change, economies change, and sometimes even runaway buses come.
2. “If I teach them how to do my job, they’ll just replace me.” This statement is not born from a kingdom-perspective, but from a multitude of emotions which may include fear, self-centeredness, and insecurity. When leaders pour into their subordinates, a relationship is deepened. The subordinates may indeed leave someday to pursue their calling, but the subordinates are generally not gunning for their leader. Who targets the replacement of someone that they have a relationship with, all in the name of doing ministry? There are some considerable advantages to working in the ministry as opposed to the corporate world, where some leaders do have to watch their backs.
3. “I believe everyone has their own calling.” We have all seen churches that had (what any other organizational type would call) rising stars in positions other than the senior pastor. If the pastor is insecure, he just hopes to get as much from that employee as possible before the rising star plants a new church or takes another position at a different church. And he hopes that either of those things happens in a different state. Then, he may justify not investing more in the rising star by thinking, “We will have different careers, who am I to force my thinking on him?”
4. “I work within a congregation-led church, so I don’t have any power over who they hire to be after me.” Technically, this is probably true. Functionally, this is uttered by leaders who—without even knowing it—claim to have limited leadership or selective influence. For instance, a retiring pastor who has been at the same church for 20 years that claims to have no influence over his successor might as well claim that his people will stop caring about him the day he retires.
5. “I don’t have time to worry about the future. I have more than enough to do now.” This is self-centeredness shrouded in seemingly disciplined activity. Don’t fall for it. If you as a leader are so overwhelmed by action that you cannot lead others to help get the work done, you are keeping more work from being done by not leading an effort to multiply the workers.
Remember, the point of succession planning is not so narrow that you are picking your own replacement. It is the charge of kingdom leaders to “[make] provision for the development, replacement, and strategic application of key people over time.” Our organization is the body of Christ, and someone will lead it in the future. Do you have something to contribute to whomever that may be?
And this is not an argument in favor of nepotism. This is a plea for leaders to develop future leaders- to help them become the best expression of who God has called them to be. This is a plea for leaders to relax and trust that God really does have a plan for your career- and it cannot be thwarted by you obediently teaching others what Christ has commanded you.
Here are some tips to get started:
1. Acknowledge the difference between succession planning and mentoring.
Mentoring is broad and vague. Succession planning is task-oriented. When you develop future leaders to be good people, that is mentoring. When you develop leaders to lead, that is succession planning.
2. Be bold in your efforts.
If one day you start having secret meetings with one particular “rising star,” people are going to think there is something being planned or something that is wrong. You will hear the murmurs questioning your health or that you are trying to control the future of the church. When you boldly tell people, “I’m seeking to develop the next generation of ministry leaders, starting with our staff” many of the murmurs will stop. And you might even have people seek you out, since now they know you are willing.
3. Spend time.
Succession planning and mentoring have this in common: nothing can be accomplished without the expense of considerable time. Preparing someone to work as you work means helping them to understand how you think, how you behave, and how you react to a multitude of circumstances. It’s one thing to have a prepared agenda for an hourly meeting once a month. It’s another thing to share meals, sit in traffic, and spend free time together.
4. Expand the capabilities of your staff in measured doses and safe environments.
If you are a pastor and have a staff member that wants to preach someday, don’t just give them the Sunday evening service on Mother’s Day and free reign to face it alone. Work with them on their outline, listen to them practice, attend the service they at which speak, and introduce them to the congregation. There is a big difference between developing staff and throwing them to the wolves.
I have been discipled and mentored by some tremendous leaders, and though each was practicing some form of succession planning with me, I never wanted to see them go. However, as their careers progressed, I became the evidence that they left behind. In the same way, I have tried to pour into men as they explore their callings and learn new skills. Some of those I have worked with are going to have ten times more influence in this world than I will ever have, and similar to a dad watching his son score the winning touchdown, I just consider coaching my successors to be part of a job well done.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
A good parent begins to prepare their child to stand on their own two feet from birth. I agree with a plan of succession.
I’ve only been in one Baptist church that practiced that concept and it was spiritually ruled by elders with no CEO concept in place. The one who succeeded the pastor was a young convert of the pastor from another state who was discipled by him. As he served as an elder in the church he experienced the call to the ministry, became a staff member and the church helped with his education in that area. He was welcomed by the entire congregation as their pastor when the former pastor stepped aside. It was a great fit and the congregation continued to grow.
I think, as Protestants, we have taken on a Catholic hierarchy in the way we set up our churches. If we could rid ourselves of this concept and change our paradigm and think of succession in a different way, our church leadership would better follow the missionary concept. Succession would be the way of life for the church. As a teacher myself, I should be the one in the church to train other teachers for the work of the ministry, not a DVD. However, we have a paid Education Director who does all that work but I do not see much of it being done or delegated. Many of the concepts I see in different churches are very similar but not very biblical. Where do those concepts come from? I would love to see and be a part of a church (and a denomination) that had its focus on succession in the right way.
Great post, Josh.
Josh,
You say: “While this is generally the part where pastors get fidgety, missionaries usually begin a never-ending chorus of ‘amens.’”
I think this is an astute observation. Having been a missionary, and a “missionary/pastor,” I can confirm the validity of what you say here. If you are there, strategically, to “work yourself out of a job,” it definitely affects your mindset. From the Church Planting Movement perspective, at least, the end-vision is not just growing a church; it is facilitating the growth of an entire movement of churches and/or evangelistic/discipling units. And, the best way to do this is by training and empowering new leaders.
I think that we all—pastors, missionaries, and “rank-and-file members”—need to have more of what some call a “kingdom mentality.” What matters most, in the long run, is not the growth of our personal corner of the kingdom, but the Body of Christ at large. And, the best way to grow the Body of Christ at large is by multiplying not only disciples, but also disciple-makers.
David’s comment follows 1 Peter 5:1-4 -
“The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.”
Every ministry in the church should have the character of “nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock”. We should always have the mind of Christ in our mission and ministry.
“Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.” Phil. 2:3-4
Succession is a timely subject, which needs to be discussed at great length! We filled a couple of key spots in the national convention, and have the IMB’s presidency still vacant.
From an organizational standpoint, this year’s Global Leadership Summit (Willow Creek) has a “must see” interview with Jack Welch. Borrow it or buy it! Listen to Bill Hybels’ reaction when he hears how far in advance the succession process needs to begin!
I am surprised that the guest author, Josh Ellis, never did respond or expand on any of our comments. I’m also surprised that “succession” wasn’t a good discussion topic either. Was this a cut and paste with the author’s permission or did the author write this for our reading pleasure only?
I hope I do not come across the wrong way here. I have to assume that something more important caused the author to remain a ghost.
Bruce,
No, this wasn’t a cut-and-paste. Perhaps Josh will still check in and respond to the comments.
Thanks, Dave.
I was hoping this would take on more discussion from him as I live 20 miles north of Houston and have an interest in further comments. I think this topic would greatly affect our church life if the SBC was to influence pastors to integrate this idea into their churches.
Bruce,
I’m with you! I want to keep this going, for it is an important topic. Let me see if I can get a bite.
Passionate discussions exist in churches and denominational entities over organism versus organization, as if one excludes the other. Yes, a church is an organism, which must not ignore organizational principles. On the other hand, denominational entities are organizations, striving for the implementation and development of organisms. Churches and denominational entities are extremely different, but both need continuity—“preserve the core and stimulate progress” continuity. Unfortunately, as a denomination (churches, state conventions, agencies, etc.), our model for succession dates back to the days of itinerant preachers! Yes, there are notable exceptions and the process is more sophisticated. Even so, we generally do not think about succession until notice has been given that a key position is going to be vacated or it is simply vacated. We wipe the proverbial slate clean. Next, we form a search committee filled with people significantly detached from the daily ministry and operations of the church or entity. The committee is tasked to recommend a candidate, yet it is often not clear on the need for a great organism leader, or a great organization leader, or someone who can balance both needs. Disaster strikes when a great organism leader is selected to lead an organization, or vice-versa. Nevertheless, have you noticed how everyone on the committee is relieved, yes, relieved, when a candidate is selected? Yet, the real transition has just begun, and continuity is disrupted. I’m not saying that we are doing it all wrong. We have made some great selections through our current process. But how many more people would have their lives radically transformed through Jesus Christ, if we did not lose focus and momentum as a result of leadership transition? How do we do this? Remove the search committee from the process and the steps necessary will become very clear. When we get there, it will be an awesome day in SBC life!
Such pressure in the last day or so for a comment! I’m honored, and I apologize for not joining the fray sooner. I’m done with 20 hour days for a while, so here goes:
Bruce, your first comment struck me as a little ironic, and here’s why: the Catholics probably practice succession planning in a more traditional form than most denominations, since their hierarchy provides a natural “escalator” from one level to the next. A pope is generally selected from a group of people proven at a particular leadership level. A Protestant search committee, especially evangelical or charismatic, might be swayed to select a pastor with inexperience because of their calling, charisma, etc. Granted, local Catholic congregations have no say in their priest, which is where I think you were going, but the Catholic succession plan has much in common with how the military handles succession planning, and the emphasis is on institutional training toward a specific task(s).
Mike, your comment sparks a litany of thoughts for me, only because I have served as an interim during a period of transition that was badly needed to move from one style of leadership to another. Succession planning is tricky, because it can keep an organization or organism in a rut if the focus is on replacing the man (and their style), rather than continuing the mission. So, I’m intrigued by the idea of getting rid of the search committee. I think in the best of circumstances, it provides a useful check and balance, however too many times it’s a few well intentioned folks faced with trying to select a person who represents the future of the church. No wonder they’re relieved when its over! And too often, they choose a leader (a task requiring great leadership) who comes in demanding to be the only source of leadership as they chart a new vision and course! It’s ironic, though not surprising, that I know of many search committee members who didn’t end up staying at the church after the new guy was hired.
Bruce, the passage from 1 Peter is at the heart of leadership: influence through example. This also is the at the heart of succession planning- leaders setting the example for others to follow, so that in time, the mission of kingdom expansion can continue through new blood, innovation, and style, without starting from scratch, reinventing the wheel, or sacrificing the gains of the past.
Josh,
When I look back at the forming of the church in scripture I see an emphasis on one subject and the structure taking shape from that. When Peter answered Jesus’ question in Matthew 16:16 Jesus came back in verse 18 with a phrase that has stuck with me, “…I will build My church..”. I don’t see a CEO in that church structure since One already exists. The Apostles, in Acts 6, saw the importance of Spiritual accuracy and the need to be a living sacrifice for the words of God to be spoken, not just accurately, but, containing the Spirit of God that they established those full of the Holy Spirit to serve tables in order to be able to focus their life entirely on the word. With that emphasis in place the daily operation of the church could not be entrusted to the hands of a CEO type pastor. His position is too important for that. When we think of succession we cannot expect to find someone outside the local church if the church has not been under a servant leadership type. What would the search committee look for if they were not bathed in God’s word or full of the Spirit of God? I would think it goes back to the simple principle of, “Birds of a feather flock together”. If the pastor and his deacons, or elders, are not engulfed with that kind of church ministry and lifestyle no one can find the right pastor search committee. It would be like choosing 12 leaders to spy out the Promised Land and expecting different results. My preference would be to grow your own pastor, grow your own deacons/elders and grow your own teachers. That should have begun when the first pastor arrived. That, to me, is biblical succession. (I understand that sometimes we have to go outside the church.) In fact, grow your own of every spiritual gifted person within the church. I love to listen to others how-to testimony from different parts of the world but nothing is better than being filled with the Spirit and applying scripture within the local church. That is the testimony I like to hear. The people would be better prepared for the new pastor and the new pastor would not have to waste time trying to change a paradigm if the church was built by Christ. Too many have tried to “build” instead of allowing Christ to do it in His time and His way.
Bruce, I think you and I agree what biblical succession is: grow your own. And I don’t see a CEO positional leader in scripture either. Just think about what a different church we would have if every leader (paid and lay) were required to pour themselves into another leader? Churches would be much more self-sufficient, and the kingdom would benefit from an increased focus of attention on things that are more important, like maybe bringing more people into it? Thanks for your comments.
Josh,
Can you hear the Hallelujah Chorus in the background?
Thanks for your post and what it means for those out there that need to hear the encouragement from the truth.
I have been reading through Roland Allen’s “Missionary Methods” and found this quote which is relevant to this:
“In our day, on the contrary, there has been a tendency to concentrate all functions in the fewest possible hands. The same man is priest and teacher and administrator, sometimes architect and builder as well. We have set up a purely artificial standard of learning as the necessary qualifications for the ministry. We have required a long and expensive college education as a preparation even for the office of deacon. We have taken the youngest men and trained them to occupy the position of authority, such very limited authority as a dative may exercise under the supervision of a foreign priest-in-charge. [104]”
I wonder if we getting what we deserve?
Rastis,
Interesting quote. I think the church followed the model that it saw in the world. I don’t mean that in the pejorative way most people read it, I mean that when it comes to trying to organize or build or control, the church went looking for models and found hierarchy. But I don’t know that the church cannot be redeemed from its stringent structures, after all, Moses needed to be taught how to delegate. I think the one thing that the church must escape from is this mentality of “he who has the most merit badges (education, skills, charisma, etc.) should be in charge.” If we let that system persist, then no one would help develop others because it would add to the other person’s reasons to be in charge. Instead, if we preached security in Christ, maybe leaders wouldn’t be so scared of losing control (or demanding it in the first place), insecure about not being needed anymore, and there would be a greater emphasis on the mission and helping others to grow into their callings.