Infrastructure & Kingly Gifts

It's not sexy to talk about building or maintaining an infrastructure, but just try to change the world without one. - Seth Godin

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2015/10/infrastructure.html

In the A29 Network we talk about leaders as prophets, priests, and kings, based on the three offices of Jesus. (I'm not actually sure where this paradigm for leadership originated, but it's the only place I hear the language.) Every leader will be have a primary strength area, a secondary strength area, and then an area that they are weak.

Prophets are leaders who speak the truth. They cut through the confusion and clarify what it happening. They are visionaries.

Priests are leaders who love. They love the people around them, are compassionate, and make people feel cared for.

Kings are leaders who organize. They plan. They are strategic. They understand how seemingly disconnected parts work together and the implications of decisions.

Kings are the ones responsible for infrastructure, and as per the quote above, are typically the ones who get ignored (at least in church ministry). Their work happens in the background, and if they are really good at what they do, their work disappears. You never see it. You just experience it.

Take Apple: Steve Jobs was the prophetic leader. He had a vision. He was (apparently) often brash. He knew what he wanted. He got things done by the sheer force of his personality. He's the one who saw the iPhone in your hand before you even knew you wanted an iPhone.

Tim Cook, on the other hand, is a kingly leader. He organizes. He's the reason the thousands of little parts in your iPhone come together at just the right time, in just the right time frame, in just the right quantity, at just the right profit point, so that the iPhone that someone else envisioned actually ends up in your hand.

Steve Jobs (rightfully) got credit for his vision. Tim Cook (rarely, at least in the general public) gets the credit for almost certainly being the most effective kingly leader on the planet. His work disappears. We look at the phone in our hand and think, "amazing!" Rarely do we stop and think about what was required to make 13 million of them, ship them to multiple countries, and sell them all in three days, with enough stock remaining to do that again in a few weeks in nine more countries, then within three months to well over 100 countries. In fact, the only time you'd think about it is when there is a glitch in the system: when you show up to the Apple Store and they don't have exactly the model that you wanted in that exact moment.

The main problem is assuming you don't need the kingly gifts in your organization. That's what most churches do, in my experience. They love the priests (how could you not? They are so caring!). They love the prophets (they give good sermons!). Kings aren't even on the radar, even though organizations are simply not effective unless there is someone without the kingly gifts in a high level of leadership. That's why many church organizations remain small. You can't get anywhere unless you have an infrastructure that actually allows for the ideas you have to come to fruition, and the people you have to be organized into a meaningful movement.

Personalities, 20-something's, & Leadership

Back when I was on staff at a church that had a staff, we spent a lot of time considering personality theory and how it related to leadership and chemistry on the team. All staff members were required to take the DISC personality profile. In contrast to some other personality tests, the DISC profile is specifically designed to help you understand how you operate in a team environment. You'll always find people who overemphasize personality type and those who underemphasize it. I personally think that these personality assessments can be an excellent tool to help understand how people operate. Even during my assessment for church planting, we were required to take both the DISC and the Meyers-Briggs. The idea was that it would help you focus on your strengths, and be aware of your weaknesses; the very least benefit you would receive was to discover that you actually did have weaknesses.

One of the challenges of any personality profile, however, is knowing what to own and what not to own. What parts of your personality were going to define you, and which parts were you actively going to work against? Although I am certain that both nature and nurture play a role in the development of our personalities as measured by these tests, the fact is that by the time we are self-aware enough to take them they have become inherent. That is, the measured traits are simply part of the way that we operate, whether born or learned. Nevertheless, they only own us if we own them; you don't actually have to treat people like they are illogical-neanderthals-who-wouldn't-know-a-good-idea-unless-someone-like-me-were-there-to-enlighten-them unless we decide to own that portion of our personality. (If you are an INTJ personality type on the Meyers-Briggs, this is one of your potential weaknesses: by the time you come to a decision, you have so thoroughly thought it through, and are so convinced that it is the correct and only option, that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.) You don't have to own those negatives. They don't have to be true of you. You can identify them, and then work against them and realize that it's possible that you aven't thought of everything; it's possible that other people have good ideas, too.

A second challenge is that personality, even though it may be inherent, takes time to properly identify in ourselves. We have more of a handle on who we are at 30 than we did at 20. We may not have much of life figured out, but at very least we have more experience and understanding of how we operated in a variety of situations that, as we compile that data in our own minds, a picture of who we really are begins to emerge. My DISC results when I was 25 were roughly the same as when I took it at 30, but I understood it far better and could see how it reflected who I really was and how I really operated. At 25, I owned it as something to be proud of; other people wished they had my profile. At 30, I had a more balanced perspective, realizing the downfalls as well as the benefits. At 35, I realize how much help I need from people around me if I'm going to do anything of significance. The more I've come to understand how I'm wired, the more I've come to depend on those around me in a healthy way.

Despite it's challenges, I still think that personality theory continues to be a valuable tool in the leaders arsenal. It both helps you how to deal with the people around you, whose personalities are inevitably different from your own, and also allows you to give them grace because you have a grasp on the things that they simply are not capable of doing. In that sense, understanding the personality of your employees is similar to how I had to understand the skill level of my basketball team. I had a certain coaching instinct going into this past basketball season; there was a way I had coached last year and there were certain milestones I wanted to achieve. And then I met my team, and I had to reevaluate my plans. I watched them play, considered their skill, and figured out what they could reasonably accomplish. Once I understood that, it changed the way that I coached them because I now understood what I could expect of them, and just as importantly, what I couldn't expect of them. There were some things that they were simply not capable of doing; it would have been oppressive for me to get on them about those things. The same goes with understanding the personality theory of our teammates or employees. If you want them to think exactly the same way that you think, you will be severely disappointed. If you get on them about it, they will feel oppressed. Knowing how they are wired helps to know the best way to help them achieve your goals for them, and their goals for themselves.

All of this is an introduction to what prompted this post to begin with. This morning I was reflecting on how difficult it can be to lead people who are in their 20's. I've heard numerous business leaders complain about this. There are studies that are done that try to identify different areas where the generations are different. All of that is helpful. But at base, I think, one of the challenges in leading 20-somethings is that oftentimes it's difficult to actually assess their personality.

I was thinking about this in relation to the most simple of personality theories, the Type A and Type B personality theory. How you handle a Type A, and the things you can expect of them, are significantly different than how you might handle a Type B. The problem is that there are a lot of people in their mid-20's who have one personality type, but are masquerading as the other. For example, there are a lot of Type A personality types who still think that sleeping in until 9:00 or later is totally reasonable. On the flip-side, there are Type B's who have embraced adulthood, so that they appear to be more ambitious than their peers, but in reality are simply more mature. It's easy to treat mature 20 year olds like they are Type A's, when they aren't. It's also easy to treat young Type A's like they are Type B's, and never challenge them to get off their duff and make a difference.

Of course, that's what the 20's are about. Figuring out what works for us. The complicating factor for the person trying to lead is that it's extremely easy to expect or demand things from a mature Type B that they are just aren't capable of delivering, or, aren't capable of delivering it the way you expected them to, whether in the time frame you wanted or with the detail you assumed. It's also extremely easy to write off some immature Type A's because you assume they are incapable of the challenge of leadership.

There's only one way that I've discovered to actually deal with this difficulty. Treat everyone that works with you or for you as people. Remember that they are gifted and flawed all at the same time. Remember that they have strengths and they have weaknesses, and you have strengths and you have weaknesses. Remember, especially when dealing with younger people, that they are trying to figure things out. Expect much, give much grace. Realize that almost everything you are pouring into them is an investment in the future. 20-somethings can accomplish a lot; with your help they'll be able to accomplish a lot more when they are in their 30's.

I think back to when I was in my twenties. I was a pain in the butt to everyone I worked for, and probably many people I worked with. I thought I knew everything. It would have been easy for people around me to write me off or pass the buck to the next poor sucker who had to deal with me. Some folks did that, and I don't blame them. Other's didn't, and for them I am grateful. As a result of their influence and willingness to live with the 20-something pain-in-the-butt, I think and hope that their investment has paid off significantly through a 30-something who is still a pain-in-the-butt, but a much more humble and productive one.

I hope I pass on that same balance of expectation and grace to the people around me.

Vision, Leadership, & Teamwork

I don't like meetings.

Actually, let me rephrase that.

I actually enjoy meetings. I just don't like what they do to people.

Meetings give the impression of valuable work, when nothing is actually getting done. They give the attendees the nspiration, but often that inspiration never generates into the perspiration required to actually accomplish the mission. 

Early on in our church planting adventure, there was a weekly (weekly!) meeting of leadership to discuss what was happening in the church and strategize for the future. Those meetings were never dull; it's one of the benefits of enjoying the company of the people you work with. Unfortunately it also gave the impression that a lot was getting done when in reality, almost everything we wanted to do was stuck in committee. A lot of good ideas were getting thrown out, but nothing was actually being done when the meeting was over.

That culture tends to attract the type of people who want to be in "leadership", but weren't leading anything, and in many cases, didn't want to lead anything. They just wanted to be at the meeting, because the perception was that this was where the "power" was generated. If they were at the meeting, they'd have input, and input equalled influence.

Someone said once that "culture eats strategy for lunch". That is, you can have the best strategy in the world, but your culture is going to be the dominant force that will ultimately dictate what you can get done. Anyone leading an organization knows how difficult it is to change the culture of the organization. Yet that's what we needed to do right from the get go. Meetings couldn't be the pinnacle or the destination of our work; they were more like the rest stop on the side of the highway.

Imagine your leadership team as a caravan of vehicles all headed towards a destination down the highway. A meeting is like the rest stop. They are necessary. Sometimes you need to make sure that the caravan of vehicles is all relatively close together so you didn't lose one another. It is good to catch up and make sure no one accidentally took an exit ramp since the last meeting, and make sure that no one is so far ahead that they aren't really a part of the caravan anymore.

Meeting based cultures are like the caravan that gets stuck at the rest-stop and keeps going inside to check the map. They may have the map memorized. They know where they've been, they know where they are, they know where they are going. But they never move.

We needed a leadership based culture. A leadership based culture is the caravan on the highway that only stops at rest-stops to make sure that the group was all still together, that they were all still headed in the same direction, and that no one was too far ahead or too far behind. In other words, the eal work gets done outside of the meeting. That was the cultural change. Unless you were doing work outside the meeting, you really didn't need to be at the meeting. If you weren't a part of the caravan, there was no need for you to stop and interface with us about the direction we were headed.

In any event, that change took some time, but now we have a leadership team that understands that the real work of ministry doesn't happen in the meeting. It happens in the nitty-gritty of daily relationships; the stuff that happens between the meetings. As our church has grown, that change in thinking becomes essential. Firstly, there is simply more ministry to be done. More people means more needs. The only way that those needs can be met is if you have leaders capable and passionate about their area of ministry. And secondly, the bigger the church and the more needs, the less time that I as the pastor have to dedicate to any one area. There is a divergence between my time and ability and the needs of the church. Other leaders need to step up.

Last night, we had our monthly ministry-leadership meeting, and I reminded them of three things that make the system work. Vision, Leadership, and Teamwork.

Vision means that we are all seeing the same thing. As the lead pastor, that falls on me to make sure that what I see is what we all see. In our case as a church, that means a radical and intense focus on visitors and new families who have been attending. This is necessary for us as more and more people join our church, but also necessary if we expect more and more people to join. We constantly need to be asking, "how does a new person view this thing?" "How does a new person feel about this?" "Does a visitor at Restore feel comfortable?" Each of us play a role in making sure that happens so that when a new person comes into Restore, they see the same thing wherever they turn or whatever leader they turn to. "This is a church who loves Jesus. This is a church who loves me."

Leadership means that we steward our position well. It means moving the ball forward. It means taking ownership. It means taking responsibility and having authority. it means stewarding our position well, so that if we ever have to turn it over to the next guy or gal, they can pick up where we left off. It means that we aren't just concerned with getting the job done now, but ensuring that we can get the job done months or years down the road when instead of 200 people we are dealing with 300 or 400. Have we been stewarding our influence and position in such a way that ministry can continue, even if we cannot?

Teamwork means understanding our position as part of a team. We are not lone rangers. We are not silos of ministry. Everything that we do impacts and affects someone else on the team or someone else in the church. If the team decides that we are going to use a particular church software to streamline our ministries and make them more efficient, it requires that everyone play their part in making that happen. For one person to be apathetic about it means that someone else will have to pick up the slack. We simply can't do our jobs alone; we need one another if we are going to have the healthiest church or organization possible.

I think one of the reasons that more churches don't move to a leadership-based culture and instead are comfortable with a meeting or committee-based culture is because a leadership-based culture requires trust in your ministry leaders. It requires you to give away authority and give them the authority that is commensurate with their responsibility. It requires you to let go of some stuff. It requires that you let people take risks and sometimes fail. It means not knowing what is going on at all times.

It's also freeing and it means that stuff gets done and the caravan keeps moving forward towards the same destination.

And every now and again, we get to stop at the rest area and stretch our legs, laugh, and have a quick meal before we head out again on the journey.

The Last Act of Leadership at Mars Hill

“If something happens to me, these all become autonomous churches and lead pastors become primary teaching pastors. So the whole thing is built for me to back out.”

— Mark Driscoll

Several years ago I watched a recorded conversation between Mark Dever, James MacDonald, and Mark Driscoll in which Mark Dever asked Mark Driscoll what the plan was if he were to ever leave the church that he founded, Mars Hill. (I think the question may have been "what happens when you die?") The question was about leadership succession; not so much what would they do if Mark got hit by a bus, but what Mark would do when he was getting ready to retire.

His response was that, when he left, all of the campuses of Mars Hill would become independent, autonomous congregations. He was confident that they had appropriate leadership at each campus who could carry the mantle, even if he were to go away.

One of the questions I've often considered in pondering the multi-site church movement is what happens when the lead preacher moves on. As far as I know, we're still in the "first generation" of Pastor's of video based multi-sites. These multi-sites have been built on the recognition that they have a particularly gifted preacher, and that it makes more sense for the mission of the church to attempt to replicate the preacher via video. In some cases, there is more to it, but there is never less. I haven't heard of any video-based multi-site churches with a boring preacher.

To be clear, I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with that. We must be willing to admit, though, that the risk of a personality cult is extremely high. Without careful succession plans, you are either setting the church up for disaster or you are setting the next preacher up for disaster, and probably both.

Mark's answer to the question struck me because of it's honesty. It was a tacit suggestion that no one else could do what he does. No one could be the "next Mark Driscoll". No one could fill Mark Driscoll's pulpit. No one could carry on the banner, even in the best of circumstances, when he presumably had time and opportunity to train a replacement as he approached retirement. Of course, that's precisely the reason that the question of what you do when the lead guy leaves looms so large.

The truth is that all churches, large or small, go through a similar difficult transition when a long-term, loved, and gifted pastor retires or leaves. I know a church who had a well-known, well-spoken pastor for years, and even though he retired nearly two decades ago, and they are on their second pastor since then, he is still revered as the one who was there during the golden years. The church has been shrinking ever since he left. The point is, it's not just large churches who have a difficult–if not impossible–time replacing the leader. The difference is in the magnitude of the problem.

The larger a church gets, particularly when it gets large under a single leader, the harder it's going to be to find someone with the ability and the skill set to "take over". And again, that's in the best of circumstances. Let alone when someone leaves suddenly.

Unfortunately for Driscoll, he was hit by the proverbial bus in the form of endless allegations and a little bit of his own unraveling. Regardless of how much of it was justified (and who are any of us to say, unless we were there?), the fact remains that by the time things were said and done he felt like the best thing to do was to walk away. So he did.

Fortunately for Driscoll, he had put a contingency plan in place at Mars Hill, and it looks like they pulled the rip chord on it. The last major act of leadership at the church (barring building sales, etc.) is that all of the campuses have an opportunity to become independent, autonomous congregations. Because no one can do what Mark did, and maybe no one should even try.