Adaptive Leadership
In The Rise and Fall of Apartheid, David Welsh offers a comprehensive and balanced history of South African politics in the 20th century. While I had some idea of the causes and challenges related to apartheid, I had not realized how complex the issues had been. Nelson Mandela is rightfully portrayed as a hero who makes some moral and political missteps in the process. At the same time De Klerk is also shown to be an integral, though flawed, player in the reform movement. I was captivated by the careful dance between these two leaders, and the lessons I can learn from how they navigated this unknown territory to a relatively peaceful end.
Welsh foreshadows the critical piece that good leadership would play, writing, “Quality of leadership, including the ability to inspire trust in one’s followers and to take them into uncharted territory, would prove crucial factors when South Africa’s transition reached its crucial phase in the 1990s” (39). Indeed, leadership into an unknown future is particularly challenging. In his book Canoeing the Mountains, Tod Bolsinger writes about the need for “adaptive leadership” when moving into a future that looks nothing like the past. According to Bolsinger, one of the keys to adaptive leadership is “disappointing your own people at a rate they can absorb” (Bolsinger, 123).
I think that we see both De Klerk and Mandela carefully doing this very thing—disappointing their own people at rates they could absorb. De Klerk, when elected, was considered a solid conservative who wouldn’t make much a difference with apartheid. But history shows that he had plans for reform from the beginning. Some might argue that that had had a hidden agenda, but in reality, De Klerk was simply figuring out how to bring people along on a journey towards a destination that was not only needed by inevitable, even if it was not destination they desired. He explains his process in retrospect, saying, “I was often criticized…for not racing ahead in pursuit of reform. Had I done so I would have alienated key players and important constituencies” (345). There is wisdom in navigating change, even change as needed as important as abolishing apartheid, at a pace that allows followers to adjust and adapt.
Mandela does the same thing. There were those in the ANC that wanted a vengeful take-over. They were filled with hate and the idea of “one nation” felt like an unwarranted concession to their long-time oppressors. Mandela met secretly with the members of the NP because there were those in the ANC who believed that the only point of negotiation was to discuss the “government’s terms of surrender and the mechanics of transferring power” (367). The reality that Mandela was working towards a peaceful way forward would be “interpreted by more insurrection-minded followers as ‘betrayal’ or ‘selling out’” (364). He too, was disappointing some of his people, particularly those who would have preferred a communist regime over a democratic one. But not so much that they sought out another leader. In fact, the vast majority of the ANC continued to follow Mandela’s lead and trust his process.
In the end, Welsh concludes, “Mandela and De Klerk went far out on a limb, well ahead of their followers, to persuade them that negotiation was the only realistic option” (375). Both leaders were risking their reputations and their power by moving towards the middle when their constituents were polarized. The polarization was deeply rooted in the destructive and divisive power of fear. The Africans had suffered under years of mistreatment and discrimination, and their fear was that if they settled for anything other than complete and total political domination they would not be truly free. The Afrikaans were a decided racial minority, and their fear was that if they yielded any bit of their power they would be mistreated and dominated by those they had long oppressed. With this in mind, it is even more impressive to me that Mandela and De Klerk—ultimately political opponents—worked together to make democracy possible.
I was also struck by how the leaders’ opinions about each other were changed after they met, and how despite their lasting differences, there was a level of mutual respect. “Mandela realised that De Klerk was the only white leader who could take the white population out of the corner into which apartheid had painted them; and De Klerk realised that Mandela’s towering authority would be vital to keeping the volatility of the masses within bounds….” (381).
I couldn’t help but notice some eerie similarities between the rise of apartheid and some of the current trends in the United States. From Hertzog’s slogan, “South Africa First” to the restrictions on immigration, to the paternalistic undertones in all of the legislation leading up to the pass laws and labour laws, I was struck by how the NP leaders played on people’s fears. Fear of not having jobs, land, or security. I spent some time in the States following Trump’s election, and found that fear was also being spouted on all fronts, often being used as a basis for political action.
This book gave me pause.
What would adaptive leadership in the American church look like at this time? And how might we, as church leaders, need to “disappoint our followers at a rate they can absorb?” Immediately following the elections, the Martin Luther King Community Center in Spokane, WA was covered with racist, hate-filled graffiti. The lead pastor of our sending church was on the scene the next day, helping with the clean-up. He didn’t publicize this himself, but as he is the pastor of the largest church in town, he ended up getting interviewed by the local news, who came to report on the crime. When I saw the news report on FaceBook, I was proud of him, so I sent an email to thank and encourage him, only to find that he had been criticized by certain church members for “getting political.” He is disappointing some of his followers, and he will continue to do so. How about you?
About the Author
Jennifer Williamson
Jenn Williamson is a wife and mother of two adult sons. Before moving to France in 2010, she was the women's pastor at Life Center Foursquare Church in Spokane, WA. As a missionary with Greater Europe Mission, she is involved in church planting and mentoring emerging leaders. Jenn benefitted from French mentors during her transition to the field, and recognizes that cross-cultural ministry success depends on being well integrated into the host culture. Academic research into missionary sustainability and cultural adaptation confirmed her own experience and gave her the vision to create Elan, an organization aimed at helping missionaries transition to the field in France through the participation of French partners.14 responses to “Adaptive Leadership”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jennifer, I was particularly struck by your cogent connection with the leadership of Mandela and deKlerk and that of your pastor in Spokane. I believe that this is the main thing to be gleaned from this text as we all gain the courage to emulate those leaders brave enough to truly lead even when it costs them popularity. The current climate in the US is a demonstration that though the context may change the fears and negative ideologies run deep and are difficult to change even after so many years and positive examples like Mandela.
Yes, and it is hard to lead when our popularity is at stake. Do you have some opportunities to address these issues in your current ministry context?
I resonated with your words on the leadership associated with the apartheid conflict and how strong, adaptive leadership can make a huge impact. Your story about the pastor from your sending church was powerful and inspiring how he was willing to disappoint his followers to do what Jesus and myself would do. Beautiful post, see you next week.
Have you read Canoeing the Mountains? I found his explanation of adaptive leadership to be very helpful.
Jennifer, merci. I appreciate you highlighting the adaptive leadership qualities of Mandela and de Klerk. Rather than just pleasing their core constituencies, they showed true leadership by disappointing them in increments without alienating them, as they perceived a more strategic pathway forward.
This is food for thought in my work and helps me understand my own leadership trajectory. I find when I am 100% predictable and confirm to the expectations by those I work with, I am not ‘on my game’. I find that on a regular basis I need to shake up the system without alienating the base in order to keep moving us forward toward desired ends. Finding that balance is an art.
Yes, I agree. It reminds me of that great quote from the movie Invictus, where his assistant says, ” You’re risking your political capital, you’re risking your future as our leader. and Nelson Mandela replies, “The day I am afraid to do that is the day I am no longer fit to lead.”
Jennifer,
Ca va bien?
I like your portrayal that leaders must “dance” sometimes to meet the needs of others and achieve their strategic goals. I enjoyed reading your quotes too. However, I disagree with Bolsinger’s assessment that an adaptive leader must disappoint their followers “at a rate they can absorb.” (1) While the change De Klerk proposed was stressful for many, I prefer leadership that tries to present news, even bad news, in a positive context instead of leading with the negative. I agree we must balance the needs of the people with the needs of the situation; that’s just one of the many challenges of leadership. I look forward to meeting you in Cape Town.
Rester ferme,
M Webb
1 Tod Bolsinger. Canoeing the Mountains: Christian Leadership in Uncharted Territory. (InterVarsity Press, 2015) 123.
I’m not sure that “disappointing people at a rate they can absorb” is necessarily “leading with the negative.” It is merely acknowledging that sometimes we have to lead people in ways that won’t meet their expectations. I’d love to hear more about your take on this. Maybe in Cape Town?
Thank you for your thoughtful post on adaptive leadership. ‘Canoeing the Mountains’ is going on my SLP bibliography (maybe for next semester because I don’t know how I am going to read all these sources but it’s definitely on my list). Your notations of the disappointment both De Klerk and Mandela were willing to face are well founded. I watched Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom the other evening and was wondering if Mandela’s wife would be noted much in Welsh’s book because of the tensions between them. I may listen to as much of the audio book as I can on my way to Cape Town to get more on that drama.
Regarding the US, I would like to see the church be courageous enough to be adaptive leaders. My concern is that we are still stuck in the ‘God and Country’ mold or fear that those who are focused on ‘God and Country’ will criticize leaders and potentially leave the church with a loud voice of influence on others and their wallets. On so many fronts the church is cowardly unless the issue is one that is either bland enough or previously settled so few, if any people, will be bothered. The unfortunate part is that few, if any, will be motivated to act if the leaders of the church will not facilitate the navigation toward God’s heart on critical topics. There will always be critics that say we either don’t preach enough of about current topics and others who think we do so too much. We have to discern the ebb and flow of what’s necessary for the times.
Yes! Discerning the times is critical…and as we’ve discussed on your post, perhaps Trump is going to help push churches to step up. I’m just praying they’ll step up in the right direction!
My thoughts resonated with your words and citation, “What would adaptive leadership in the American church look like at this time? And how might we, as church leaders, need to “disappoint our followers at a rate they can absorb?”’
I especially appreciated how you used examples to back up disappointing our leaders at a rate they can absorb.
It has always been, understandably in some situations, that the church is the last to respond. Change is hard for the church, but because God is THE change agent, change for the better will always be necessary.
See you soon on the other side of the world…
What is interesting is that there are times and places when the Church is leading the change. One example that shocked me when I moved to France 7 years ago–it is the evangelical church in France that is leading in the area of caring for the earth. Just this week, they have even established guidelines for churches to receive a “green” rating, something that has been encouraged by the national council of French Evangelicals. Part of getting a green rating is having church members that are active in leading and participating in local environmental efforts. The article is in French, but here it is: https://www.reforme.net/actualite/environnement/environnement-lancement-dun-label-eglise-verte/
Jennifer,
I really enjoyed your perspective on leadership – I’m especially struck by your story about your pastor who was accused of becoming “political” for helping to clean up “racist, hate-filled graffiti”. Wow! In my mind, political is endorsing a policy or candidate – not condemning hate speech and illegal graffiti. Sadly, I believe that’s rhetoric which comes from white privilege (ie. “you’re making me uncomfortable in my safe, secure world – we should just ignore uncomfortable things”). I’m so anxious to hear more about your experiences in France! It will be fascinating to hear what they are doing well and what lessons we can learn regarding Christian leadership in the U.S.
Safe Travels!
Jean
Jennifer, I wanted to congratulate you on your brave comments concerning the “flaws and missteps” of Mandela. I mean that because I fear too often we are scared to “pick on the hero” of the story. The reality is that you are so very correct. Throughout the book, there are times when you can see that the decision had good motives but perhaps not the best process of execution. Even Mandela aligned himself with the wrong people at times, even to the disdain of his own people. I am quite certain that none of us are immune to mistakes, nor are we immune to influence or peer pressure. We desire to do the right thing, but find ourselves pushed, coerced, or maybe just persuaded to go the wrong way, if even just for a short time.
I believe we see a strong heart in Mandela, but at the same time, we see a struggle with the entire path he is called to walk. As we walked through the prison on Robben Island, and our guide was sharing with us the stories of their secret meetings and their plans concerning the future, I could not help but think about what those conversations must have been like. Did they sound the same in prison as they did once they were released? Had direction changed, had motives changed or had perspective changed? How much persecution or consequence does it really take for us to compromise along the way?
Though I am sympathetic to the plight, I appreciate that you did point out that not every step taken was a perfect one. The reality is that if we are to truly learn from the mistakes of the past, then we must be honest about the past. Though I know my comment was not really where your post was going, in a way it was. You referenced what many of us felt, and that is that there are a lot of similarities between South Africa’s history and the United States. In fact, I believe we can see a lot of similarities in its present as well. We struggle so much with trying to overcome not just our past, but also the hate that is present, and perhaps the best way to do that is to look honestly at what has worked and not worked in both South Africa and America.
Great post.