Recently, I was called to work with a pastor A, and congregation in conflict. I arrived to discover a congregation at war. Several families had already left the congregation; many others were threatening to follow.
The church had no prior history of serious conflicts within its membership. The former pastor had served there for many years, leaving only because he had reached retirement.
The present pastor had served only three years at the time of my visit. During that time, however, the once-peaceful congregation had turned sour. Capable leaders couldn’t agree on a remedy for the situation, but knew something had to be done if the church were to survive.
I spent two days meeting with dozens of people in private and group sessions. One message came through loud and clear: the leadership given by the new pastor was the primary focus of the conflict.
Nothing in the pastor’s history indicated he would create problems. He had served only two churches prior to this one. In both instances he had been the founding pastor and had stayed at each church fifteen years. Under his leadership both congregations had grown to over one thousand members.
Did he somehow lose his skill and effectiveness overnight? Even his detractors in this church did not suggest he was inept. Everyone, friend and foe alike, asserted he possessed unique and great capabilities. When it came to preaching and reaching the unchurched in the community, he still had a “master’s touch.” He had not changed.
Yet a group of new members, who had been brought into the church under this pastor’s ministry, fully supported the pastor’s leadership, describing him as concerned, hard working} effective, and sensitive; a much larger group of long-time members stood in solid opposition to the pastor’s leadership, describing him as autocratic, power-hungry, insensitive, and self-centered.
How is it possible for two groups in the same church to view a pastor’s leadership so differently?
Unfortunately, the problem was that the pastor had not changed at all. He came to this new assignment (a church seventy years old, with one thousand members) using the same leadership style he’d successfully used for thirty years. Although that style attracted many new members, the lay leaders, who over the years had worked to build this congregation, clashed with the new members and fought the pastor for leadership of the church.
The pastor had made one mistake: he failed to recognize that the leadership needs and expectations of this large, established congregation were very different from those of the new, rapidly growing congregations he’d served previously. Thus, from the first day, the pastor and lay leaders were out of “sync.” Apparently neither side could, or would, make the necessary adjustments to bring the parties into agreement with one another, resulting in debilitating conflict.
It became apparent the pastor didn’t know what lay at the core of the problem. He’d come to this church and worked hard, but the situation had deteriorated. Instead of recognizing the negative effects of his leadership style, he saw the problem as partly an emotional tie to the old pastor and partly a reaction against the threatening presence of many new members in the church.
As I worked with him and the congregation, he began to hear their concerns. Unfortunately, too many of the lay leaders felt the damage that had been done was beyond repair. Thus, in a beautiful Eucharist service, with much confession and forgiveness on the part of all, the pastor resigned his duties as he and the people wept for the pain each had caused the other over the past three years.
Many a “what if” could be asked about this situation. What if the denominational officials had been more sensitive to the congregation’s needs regarding the pastor’s leadership style? What if the lay leaders hadn’t been so stubborn? What if the pastor had adopted a different leadership style? Although the pastor’s leadership was not the only negative factor in this situation, it was the key issue.
And from this, there’s a leadership lesson to be learned. Church leaders, whether pastors, board members, or Sunday school teachers, must match their leadership behavior to the needs of the specific group they’re working with at any given time.
Leadership means influencing the thinking or activities of others toward accomplishing tasks or achieving goals in a particular situation. We all lead in some situations; a parent influences significant decisions of a child, a teacher guides the learning of students, a pastor gives direction to a church. The behavioral patterns you use as a leader (parent, teacher, pastor) have been learned over a period of time, and are consistent enough so others (children, students, parishioners) come to expect you to act in certain predictable ways.
Leaders generally have one leadership style with which they feel most comfortable and tend to use in most leadership situations. This is called the “preferred style.”
In addition, leaders generally have one or more styles they tend to fall back on when for some reason their preferred style is not achieving the intended results, called “back-up styles.”
This article speaks only to the manner in which a leader functions in the context of organizations; for example, how a pastor administers the organizational aspects of the church. It does not speak about the pastor’s function in the additional roles of priest and/or prophet.
There are, perhaps, four basic leadership styles:
1. Passive Involvement. This style communicates, “I’ll be around, but don’t expect me to do the work or to take care of you in the organization.” The passive leader tends to postpone decisions and let others assume responsibility for taking action.
2. Total Involvement. This style says, “We’re all in this together. Each of us has something to add in deciding what we’re going to do and how we’ll do it.” Here, the leader tends to be fully involved and expects all others to be equally involved and responsible for all phases of the group’s activities.
3. Person Oriented. With this style we hear, “In this organization the wishes and feelings of persons come first. What I might want, or what the organization wants, comes second.” This type of leader tends to “give in” quickly in conflict, and works hard to ensure that people like one another, and that they enjoy being a part of the group.
4. Task Oriented. This style communicates, “The needs of this organization and its overall welfare come first. The wishes and feelings of persons come second.” The leader takes control of the situation, makes decisions, and provides a structure for the group to carry them out.
In addition, there are two variations of these four styles that I’ve seen in church leaders. One is “The Slave,” those who rush around trying to do far more work than they possibly can. Therefore, much of what they do is done poorly. The pay-off for the slave is that the bustling, Mickey-Mouse activities become an excuse for not tackling the tough decisions and not getting at the more difficult or distasteful tasks. The second is “The Martyr,” those who attempt to control others by producing feelings of guilt or pity. “How can we help but do what John asks? Look at all he’s done and all the things he’s suffered for us!”
Each of us prefers one of the above leadership styles. If you’re not sure which of these styles you use most often, chances are your children, committee members, or students can. Do you ever listen to children talking? “Don’t ask Mom, she’ll say ‘No’ ” (Task oriented). “Let’s ask Dad, he’s a push-over” (Person oriented). “It’s no use asking the teacher. She’ll never tell you anything” (Passive).
Each of these styles, with the exception of the Slave and the Martyr, is appropriate and effective in certain situations. There is no ideal, no best style. The leadership behavior that works so perfectly in one situation may fail completely in another situation. The parenting approaches used so effectively with Johnny may prove totally inadequate, even counterproductive, with Billy. Thus, the leadership style that worked effectively for thirty years in two churches proved ineffective in the third church.
What makes the difference? Billy is different from Johnny; the third church is different from the other two. Some churches need a task oriented pastor. When such a pastor takes control, makes decisions, tells people what to do, and how to do it, they perceive that leader as concerned, sensitive, and loving. Other churches do not need such structure and direction in order to carry on effective ministries; such a pastor is perceived as power-hungry, insensitive, and unconcerned. Therefore, good leaders must be flexible. If the preferred style is used in every situation, the leader will be ineffective in some of them. Every thinking leader must ask, “Do I lead for my own comfort, or do I lead for the overall welfare of the group?”
There are three ways to gain insight into your leadership styles and the degree to which you are effective in the use of these styles:
1. Reflect on your leadership behavior; ask yourself some honest questions about the results you’ve experienced as a leader. Write a paragraph describing your conclusions.
2. Utilize a survey instrument to identify your leadership behaviors in a variety of situations, and measure your relative effectiveness in them.
3. Ask others how they view your leadership and its effectiveness. Questionnaires are available to assist them in giving this feedback to you. When asking persons for feedback, it’s usually best to ask five to ten persons and then compare their responses.
The best evaluation comes from using all three of the approaches listed above.
Too many leaders base their leadership behavior on the basis of what feels good for them or what has worked before. Many leaders are “fixed” in their style and believe it is fully appropriate for them to lead in this way. We’ve all heard leaders say, “Well, this is just the way I am, and they (the followers) will just have to get used to it.”
Leading in the manner described above may be comfortable for leaders and their needs, but the question must also be asked, “Is it meeting the group’s needs?” Is the leadership causing people to grow or shrink in their abilities? Are the people becoming more active, or more passive and dependent on the leader? Are they finding self-esteem and satisfaction in their involvement, or are they unhappy, frustrated, and complaining?
There are, of course, other factors that influence a group’s behavior and attitudes toward its work. Leadership style alone is not the total story. But leadership style is one of the key factors, and it is one most leaders can do something about.
Copyright © 1981 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
