Having the nerve to lead
How many times have you heard the phrase “lets just all get along”? This is a common saying or theme that many businesses and church leaders are propagating. It seems that the art of leadership is has given way to allowing everyone to have equal say and vote in the workplace. While it is important for employee’s opinions to be heard and valued, it is equally important for leaders to “lead”. Edwin Friedman’s book, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, is one of the most insightful books that I’ve read on leadership based on my knowledge of the typical American organization’s culture.
Servant Leadership is a current trend across many organizations, and while leaders should take on the attitude of a servant’s heart it has often been misunderstood that leaders shouldn’t take a strong position. We hear phrases like “being a team player” or “gaining consensus”. The cultural climate is one in which many people fear speaking up or making decisions. While servant leadership, being a team player, and listening to other’s opinions are good, those things should not hinder a leader’s ability to step up to the plate. Friedman discusses the fact that anxiety holds people back from leadership, as society is geared towards safety versus risk. I’ve seen this happen many times as leaders fail to make take a stand or make decisions. They avoid ownership of the decision. The term “analysis paralysis” is commonly used in corporate American to refer to a leader who can’t seem to make a decision without conclusive data that indicates they are making the correct choice.
Friedman argues that leaders must self-differentiate. This means that they stand solid in their beliefs and continuously work towards self-revelation. A leader that isn’t self-differentiated will tend to go along with every trend, align to majority ideas, and could easily fall prey to drama or gossip. Note, although a person may be self-differentiated, they still have teamwork and understand their function within the network of relationships at the organization. Basically, the leader is present, and in this presence they have influence. Leaders cannot be consumed by anxiety, which is difficult in today’s climate. With lacking job security and many pressures to perform at constant high levels, many in leadership roles go along with organizational norms even when they know it is wrong. They fear repercussion from being different. Friedman asserts that the key is for leaders to focus on their own behavior instead of the functioning of others. They need to disconnect from their emotional reactions, and instead have a calming influence on the greater system. They balance being differentiated while maintaining relationships.
I’ve seen directly Friedman’s concept of “imaginative gridlock” at play. When people get too involved in the emotions and drama that can happen within an organization, they loose the ability to think objectively, to appreciate new ideas, and to be innovative. This, in turn, does not create a climate that is conducive to change. Yet, all organizations must experience change to effectively move forward. I thought it interesting that Friedman pointed out that leaders must be prepared to face resistance. Too often, leaders back down to any resistance out of fear or anxiety. Resistance will happen as the self-differentiated leader disturbs the balance within the system. While peacemaking is a good leadership trait, it is negative when a leader favors harmony or keeping things calm over making progress and doing what is right. Friedman calls this behavior “peace-mongering”.
I’ve been in positions where I’ve needed to face controversy or to “make a stand” against the norm of an organization. While it can be unpopular and uncomfortable, it can even mean risk to your personal reputation or security. At the end of the day, I’d prefer to know that I acted ethically and did what I know is best. But, it takes nerve…hence the title of Friedman’s book. In churches, I’ve seen pastors get run over by boards or strong-willed church members. I once served with a pastor who would spend hours talking to me about tough decisions that he knew needed to be made concerning cutting toxic staff members. Yet, he let the church struggle for a couple of years before acting out on what needed to be done. He didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or to upset any donors. I struggled with the fact that this person was a “leader” that talked a good game, but then let ministries suffer. In my experience, church leaders often have more trouble making tough decisions than people in secular organizations. I believe this is because they often lack management training, they fail to understand healthy conflict, and they try to keep peace across everybody. Sometimes it isn’t possible to make everyone happy, keep the peace, and to do the right thing for the organization. Yet, at the end of the day it is the leaders job to do the right thing for the health of the organization. Why do you think so many church leaders lack “nerve”?
About the Author
Richard Volzke
7 responses to “Having the nerve to lead”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Richard, you bring some excellent points to the table as you relate Friedman’s book to pastoral ministry. The tensions that exist within a church leadership structure are many. Likely, using Friedman’s terminology, we can talk about a complex assortment of “triangles”. From my perspective, as a pastor, it is important to understand that there are very few “big decisions” that need to made by me alone. The more important aspect is to develop a culture of leadership among the congregation as they are the ones who will continue on, once the pastor moves or leaves. At least in my context, more pastors are thinking this way and though more difficult, it is better for the church family in the long run. So, I guess I would say that is one contributing factor for the possible “failure of nerve”. There are many other factors of course. Thanks for the challenge.
Deve,
Your willingness to develop leaders to come along beside you is something every pastor should be doing! Unfortunately, many pastors seem to think they need to be a one man show and do everything themselves. A good example of this truth…Mars Hills Church. Mark Driscoll’s leadership style has caused the church to collapse after he left. It is a shame, as they went from a thriving church to nothing in a matter of weeks.
Richard, Great summary on this book! I appreciate that you indicated the misconception about servant leadership as merely serving others but not taking a strong position. Friedman’s concept of self-differentiation is an critical attitude for healthy leadership. You ask a great question: Why do you think so many church leaders lack “nerve”? I do not think I have the right answer. But the challenge, as I see it in my culture, is that there are lots of expectations and pressure for togetherness, which makes difficult for leaders to have “nerve” when they need to make the right decision. I do not how this relates to your context. Thank you!
Telile,
Culture can have a lot of influence on how a person leads. American culture tends to be more individualistic than some other societies. In my opinion, having a community versus individualistic culture can be either positive or negative on the person in leadership. If a leader comes from a culture this is “close knit”, they may allow others to come alongside to help guide them. Or, as you have stated it may also put pressure on the leader to make a popular decision and not the right one. In America, we know we tend to work as an individual, so great emphasis is placed on being “a team player”. This is so strong that people fear their individuality in the work place.
Hi Richard,
Really good post. Well done! You make some great points, which I appreciated.
As you say, as leaders, we can lack the ‘nerve’ to make tough choices and decisions for the greater good. Ministry work isn’t always clean and easy as you know. In my last job, my lead pastor would sometimes ask me to do some of what I called the ‘dirty work’. That is, approaching someone who needed rebuking, or perhaps removing from a ministry position. It just became part of my role.
As leaders our call isn’t to be flavour of the month, but to be differentiated. To be firm in our values and convictions and lead accordingly.
Anyway, thank you Richard. I enjoyed reading your post.
Liz,
Thanks for the reply. In my last ministry position, it seemed I was always put into the position of either calling out something bad or negative, or coming in and fixing messes the church had gotten themselves into. Because of this, there were some on the staff that did not like me, or felt threated by me. I had to step out of the drama and do my job to the best of my ability, as the Lord led me to do. We must stand firm on Biblical truths and teachings so we can lead our people forward to holy living…and we must strive to do the right thing at all times. I’ve not always done the right thing, and caved to the ways of the world around me. When I’ve done this, I’ve failed as a leader. Further, this impacted my relationship with Christ. Following the world instead of Him is always wrong. There are consequences when we fail to step up and do the right thing…even when we fail to speak up or have “nerve” to do seemingly little things.
Hi, Richard,
I like your emphases on leaderships’s aversion to risk. Friedman suggests a direct relationship to effective leadership and risk; he notes that, “in the final analysis, the relationship between risk and reality is about leadership” (3430). He also stresses an interesting point that having more knowledge does not relate proportionately to being a risk-taker. We tend to think that understanding is (knowledge) is the key to decision making. Friedman refutes such thinking. One of the key concepts he states as a fallacy is “that data are more vital to leadership than the capacity to be decisive” (950). Rather than attempting to level the element of risk Friedman gives three areas that accentuate creative and imaginative risk taking: 1) freedom to make mistakes, 2) the value of chance and 3) overcoming emotional barriers (the belief that somethings are just not possible, such as the long held belief that it was not possible to run a four minute mile). He states emphatically, 100% of the time, it is the “highly anxious risk-avoider) …” a “peace-monger” who sabotages effective leadership (326) .