For two weekends in October, I am presenting seminars on the general topic of leadership. Leadership is intriguing. My doctoral research dealt with leadership cohesion, especially focused on leadership teams. I have worked with church leaders, e.g. elders, deacons, and teachers, for over 40 years. As a local minister, I served as a leader in the church–more than I realized during my ministries. In the church, one mostly leads volunteers. My ministry took me to the academic world where leadership is exercised differently than in the church. For most of two decades, I have worked with leaders on trustee boards or boards of directors–in academics and in mission work.
A great challenge of leadership is to lead by principle. Effective leadership is seldom reactionary. I sat with a group of trustees as they discussed qualities desired in the people in the organization. One participant asked, “How will this policy address Situation A?” (referring to a potential problem with a certain individual). As facilitator and consultant to the group, my response was, “It will not ‘fix’ that situation.” I could have added, “It is not designed to ‘fix’ any situation or problem.”
The policy under consideration was an effort to consider proactively how the organization could progress by identifying the right kind of people to serve, those who would bring certain skills, orientation, understandings, insights, and experiences. When policies become reactionary–efforts to try to “fix” every little situation by legislation, one soon learns that it is impossible to pass enough legislation to make everything run smoothly.
Leadership that tries to legislate about every situation that arises will be continually involved in minutiae and the trivial. An eldership delegated to a committee the task of determining how best to honor the new parents and babies in the congregation–who, when, where, etc. The committee developed guidelines, procedures, and a calendar. The eldership approved and adopted the guidelines. All went smoothly for a few years, and then one year the guidelines did not include some whom the elders wanted to include. (The eldership had experienced some change during the intevening years.) How does one handle such a situation?
There are two options. One is to lead by exception, the other is to lead by principle. The first approach rewrites policy to include the exceptions, but sets the precedent of having to rewrite the policy every time a new exception comes into view. The second approach is to lead by principle, and to help all involved move closer to the intention and guidelines of the original policy.
This does not mean that policies should never be reviewed, or that new needs do not arise. This is to say that leading by exception is a never-ending circle that ultimately makes little progress and often leads nowhere. Governments are more and more inclined toward leading by exception–if this were not so, there would be no reason for lobbying by special interest groups.
Principle-based leadership is really fairly simple: We do what is right without exception. We treat people fairly. We live lives of principle and we encourage others to do the same. When Christian principles guide those who lead, Christ will be made known more and more widely. When leadership is by exception, people will be left wondering how they can get special treatment.
God gives to all without exception or favoritism. Favoritism is forbidden in Scripture, and makes us less like God. Read thoughtfully–my point today is not complex. I am issuing a call for leaders who will lead by principle!