Photo by mehul dave on Unsplash
Over my time as a Christian, I have seen some leaders make much
ado about loyalty — how important it is. I find it utterly bemusing. Don’t they
know there is only one loyalty; only
one allegiance. If a leader needs to
depend on the loyalty of their people, they’re asking them to follow them and
not Christ.
Such a leader has usurped God.
I don’t decry the need for unity and moving forward together. I
recognise the need to respect office.
But the last thing any leader needs is a herd giving blind
allegiance.
Leaders, on the other hand, need, and this is a paradox in the
faith world, a devil’s advocate.
We need teams who are prepared to wrestle with issues
respectfully, where differences of opinion are not seen as divisive or a move
of dissension.
If your leadership requires blind obedience (i.e. universal
agreement with you), and it doesn’t leave room for differences in viewpoint,
your loyalty, I suggest, is unbiblical, counter-productive and ultimately
ineffective, as far as a leadership style is concerned, and further, a misuse
of power.
The issue is you have the wrong people following you. If it is
only those who have something to gain from you who will follow you, then they
aren’t following for the right reasons.
If our team leadership and team membership is more about what we
think of each other than the issues we miss the mark.
Yet, paradoxically, what we think of each other is crucial as
far as trust is concerned. The kind of parallel I’m trying to draw here is one
that a leader’s trust transcends their need for loyalty. This means trust can
be protected even, and especially, when one of our team members decide to play
devil’s advocate — and all teams need such a role, otherwise groupthink enters
the process and the group falls short of its purpose. Recall that groupthink
was one of the causes of the 1986 Discovery space shuttle disaster.
The narcissistic leader gathers their team to them, and they are
fiercely protective of anyone who has a proven track record of allegiance.
They give the appearance of the right kind of partiality; you
scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. But it is still partiality. There is limited scope to question such a
leader’s wisdom, and for some leaders you do so at your peril.
Occasionally, however, there is someone close who appeals to
such a leader because this person has won their trust and has proved their motive
is one of protecting the leader.
For too long now, a leader’s performance in an intangible game
has been based on hard numbers. This sort of pressure makes leaders behave in
strange ways. Such key performance indicators can cause otherwise good people
to lead in a bad way. They must make things happen. And such a drive has been
popular in leadership circles for some time. This kind of drive favours certain
kinds of personalities. But I think the best leaders are the genuinely
reluctant types. The pressure is on to have new members, more baptisms, more
conversions, and I don’t know many churches meeting these requirements.
Churches in this day and age are more likely to have transfer growth than
conversion growth.
A better leadership example as far as loyalty is concerned would
be to call people to their allegiance to Christ. And if we subscribe to the
priesthood of all believers, we will quickly discover that one priest thinks
differently to the next one, and so on.
We need to learn to glory in the idea that we all think
differently, yet we are all equally convicted by the Holy Spirit, so no wonder
there is conflict in church leadership.
So, we must appreciate there will be different views, and
celebrate the emergence of diversity.
Leaders need to appreciate that calling people to loyalty to
themselves is fraught with peril.
This is a leadership we should value: a wisdom that can be
questioned and that stands up to challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment