"Help!" came the plea over the telephone. "Half my church board has resigned. I'm in trouble. Can you come help me?"
As assistant to the president of a local conference, I was responsible for dealing with conflict. So I dropped everything to visit with this pastor. No hint of any difficulties had surfaced in his previous district, where he had conducted a highly successful soul-winning program.
As I visited with him and his board members I soon discovered that his leadership style did not synchronize with this church. He preferred a dominant, even authoritarian role and regarded letting others make the decisions or have a major part in directing the future of the church as weak leadership.
But whereas his previous district had consisted mainly of blue-collar people who worked for others and were accustomed to obeying orders, this church contained a large group of self-made businesspeople who liked to make their own decisions and did not appreciate the pas tor's making many of the decisions for them.
Is it possible that what might seem like weak leadership may instead be strong leadership? Since one's personality and leadership style are usually inextricably related, one seldom adopts a leadership style different from his personality. Yet management literature and the Bible itself emphasize that at times, to lead effectively one must adopt a different style from that to which one is accustomed.
No one would ever accuse the apostle Paul of being a weak leader. Anyone who could stand up to Peter (Gal. 2:14) had a strong personality. Yet this same strong leader could also say, "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak" (1 Cor. 9:22, NIV).
Paul—weak?
Impossible. The context of the passage informs us that Paul was trying "to win as many as possible" (verse 19, NIV). Thus he became "like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law... like one under the law. . . . To those not having the law . . . like one not having the law" (verses 20, 21, NIV).
Paul adapted his leadership style and his personality to meet the differing needs of the people he ministered to. What one would consider weakness he considered necessary to build confidence and trust with those who lived on a more immature level than others.
We can reduce leadership style to four main elements: telling, selling, consulting, and participating. A parent tells a 1-year-old child what to eat. That child lacks the maturity to make his or her own decisions. However, by the time he or she becomes a teenager, the parent should have moved through the spectrum of telling, selling, and consulting to participating, in which the whole family decides its menu.
Telling 17-year-olds that they must eat their vegetables reveals a bankrupt parenting style. Such teenagers have not been prepared to become independent, decision-making adults.
Leaders play a similar role to parents. Groups vary in their social and organizational maturity. Some people prefer being told what to believe and when to evangelize. Others need some convincing (selling), but will eventually accede. A third group wants to be consulted, and the wise leader listens to their ideas before making the decisions for the group. But the fourth group, which wants equal say and responsibility in the decision-making process with the leader, is often the most difficult to handle—at least by the leader who relies heavily on the telling and selling styles, with a little consulting thrown in.
The participating style of leadership is often considered "weak" by "strong" leaders. But it is when the leader seems weak, when he or she is listening to the needs of the people and responding lovingly to those needs, that he or she is the strongest.
Robert Worley summarizes the issue of conflict and leadership style: "Frequently the behavior that leaders dislike or are fearful of has appeared as a reaction to the political style and activity of the present leadership. Leaders are generally unaware that their own behavior tends to produce the behavior they dislike in others" (A Gathering of Strangers, p. 56).
A leader may by force of personality conduct business more in the telling/selling than in the consulting/participating mode, even with mature groups. Loyalty to the system, to the church organization, may prevent open revolt. But incipient rebellion often simmers just beneath the surface. People have many ways of showing their displeasure: withdrawing tithe and offerings, attending sporadically, sup porting independent ministries, calling for change of pastor or administrator, changing constitutions, and so on.
Often it is not until a less able leader appears that the fruit of the previous leadership style is seen. No matter how difficult a task it is, pastors and church administrators must learn the lesson of weakness: "For when I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Cor. 12:10, NIV).— J. David Newman.
