A Deficit of Trust

A wise friend of mine noted a phrase President Barack Obama used during his recent State of the Union address. The President spoke of "a deficit of trust." I think he's on to something, regardless of any individual political preferences. The two major political parties display an essential distrust of one another. Republicans and Democrats are beyond having differing approaches to the common goal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. Republicans believe the Democrats are out to create a big government, socialist state. Democrats assume all Republicans aim to protect those of power and means at the expense of the working class and the poor. In addition, we see an erosion of trust between the average citizen and those in leadership positions. As my friend suggested, from Watergate, to Monica Lewinsky, and through non-existent weapons of mass destruction, confidence is evaporating.

In his fascinating book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable, Patrick Lencioni suggests that the foundational dysfunction of any group is the absence of trust. This holds true for anything from a committee, to a small business, to a corporation, to a faith community, to a nation. A deficit of trust is indicative of many things: lack of a common mission and vision, the needs of individuals overriding the main goal of the group, egotistic power plays, etc.

I believe this holds true, at least in gatherings of Jesus-followers. I'm familiar with a number of congregations. In the congregations that have the most health and success at making new disciples, the disciple-making mission is clear and it drives everything the group does. Ego needs take a back seat to overall fulfillment of the mission. Everyone knows his/her role in the movement, and works to trust everyone else to fulfill their roles. Involvement is less about what I get out of it, and more about what I put into it.

So again, whether your are a Republican or a Democrat, or an Independent voter like me, the President may have pin-pointed the issue. It's not about which ideology prevails. It's deeper than that. The question is whether we can rebuild a basic trust that, though we may differ in methodology, we are all aiming for the same goal.

I'll see you around the next bend in the river. (Trout season opens in the Missouri state impoundments in 18 days!)

Follower-Ship

The topic of leadership is a hot one these days, for good reason. Times are changing. Governments, businesses, markets, not-for-profits, churches and faith-based operations all face a serious crossroads. Human entities of all kinds must reconnect with their primary mission and transform methodology. If they fail to do so, and if they doggedly make existing methodology their goal, they will doom themselves to irrelevance and oblivion. Leaders are needed to chart the course through these unknown and potentially dangerous waters.

So, leadership is the topic of study. In my field, the mission of the Body of Jesus Christ, leadership is not what it once was. Leaders of churches (pastors) at one time tended to inspiring weekly messages, regular visitation of membership, spending time with the sick and dying, solving all problems of the church, and that sort of thing. Now pastors must keep the congregation focused on the primary mission of making new disciples of Jesus, cast a clear and compelling vision of addressing that mission, select and train leadership within the congregation, and keep the congregation more focused outward than inward. For many of us, that means a necessary reshaping of our leadership skills and focus. This is vitally important. An organization or movement will only be as strong and effective as the vision, impact, and influence of the leadership. No well informed person would deny this principle.

However, there's another side to leadership. A friend of mine directs a not-for-profit mission. She is working diligently to keep her organization focused on it's primary goal. To accomplish this, she is seeking to be the best leader she can be. She reads, she spends time on-line, she observes other outreach organizations, she receives critical coaching, and she participates in all manner of on-going transformation of her role as a leader. She does this willingly and eagerly. However, in a moment of fatigue the other day, she asked a disarming question..."How many books do I have to read to change them?" That's a good question. True the leader of any organization has to be at his or her best, and work constantly to maintain that. However, are those who are to be lead merely inert objects waiting for the right motivation? At some point, are we who are called to follow not individuals with moral responsibility and choice making capacity.

While he presented a compelling vision, and embodied that vision, I don't think Jesus forced following on anyone. In fact, at the crucial pinnacle of his embodiment of the vision, the cross, only one of his closest followers was still with him, and then possibly only there out of obligation to take care of Jesus' mother. At some point he had done all he could do, and it was up to those before whom he cast the vision to decide if they were compelled to follow him and it, or if it was some kind of a divine hoax to be ignored.

I'm not making excuses for leaders. If leaders don't do what they do with excellence, there's no hope of followers. I just wonder if in addition to developing leadership we need to develop "follower-ship."

I'll see you around the next bend in the river. Hopefully it won't be as long a stretch next time.