Personal Mission Statement
March 31, 2008
Since servant leadership can be expressed through a wide variety of ministry leadership roles and functions, it is important for every leader to clearly articulate his or her personal mission. Actually writing a personal mission statement may seem like a perfunctory exercise – until you try to do it. Putting your life’s purpose into one sentence is very challenging.
What is a personnel mission statement? It is a one-sentence statement of God’s unique assignment for you in his kingdom. Your life mission is fluid. It changes throughout the seasons of life. Normally, I encourage leaders to write a new personnel mission statement every year in their 20’s, every three years in their 30’s, twice in their 40’s, and once per decade after that. While this is an arbitrary pattern, it seems to take into account our need to articulate a specific mission and adjust it as we learn more about God, life, and ourselves.
There are biblical examples of this kind of statement. Jesus said, “The Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10). Paul wrote, “I have become its (the church’s) servant by the commission God gave me…admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ” (Col. 1:25, 28). While these statements do not tell us everything Jesus or Paul did, they do encapsulate their ministries and provide a baseline from which everything else can be extrapolated.
My personnel mission statement, following the pattern mentioned above, has changed several times in the past 20 years. In fact, I am currently working on a new mission statement for the next decade of my life – my 50’s. Here is what I have written and am still refining. By the end of this year, something close to this will be my new statement:
“God has called and equipped me to be a visionary leader and to influence other leaders to accelerate the fulfillment of the Great Commission.”
Notice what is in the statement (and its implications). God has called me (His initiative). God has equipped me (His enabling). My core role is visionary leader (assigned now to Golden Gate Seminary, but broader than this as God gives opportunity). My secondary role, growing out of my primary role, is to influence other leaders (students, pastors, missionaries, etc. through speaking, teaching, and writing). My result is the fulfillment of the Great Commission (personal involvement, and by extension through leaders I influence).
Notice what is not in the statement. There is no reference to the details of how this will be done. God will provide opportunities throughout the next decade to live out this mission. How it will happen is a mystery - the adventure of living a Spirit-led discipled life.
A clearly stated, passionately lived mission has several advantages and positive outcomes for a leader. Next week we will look at four of them!
<< Return to Archive
Biblical Perspective on Servant Leadership
March 24, 2008
Short web columns are not adequate for detailed commentary or establishing comprehensive theological rationale for a position. But, let me try to outline some key passages about the concept of servant leadership. We are in the second week of an unfolding perspective on servant leadership as one description of Christian leadership.
One foundational passage on servant leadership is Matt. 22:34-40. Jesus was clear about the greatest commandment – love God. The second, and the context indicates it is a close second – serve people. “Love God, serve people” is a good recipe for leadership effectiveness. The first commandment, in its broadest sense, addresses a leader’s integrity, motive, and ultimate Evaluator (God). The second commandment addresses attitude, motive, and who benefits in the leadership relationship (our followers). “Love God, serve people” is a great bumper sticker summarizing servant leadership.
Another key passage is Mark 10:35-45. In this passage, James and John reveal some confusion still common to Christian leaders today. They were struggling with understanding Jesus’ radical message about relationships in contrast to their culturally ingrained understanding of leadership. In short, they were struggling with ambition – the foundational motive for leadership in many secular settings. Jesus bluntly contrasted Christian leadership with worldly leadership. They are not only not the same concept; they are polar opposites. Although they are not always opposite in the leadership skills required, they are always opposite in motive. Notice in the previous paragraph the common denominator in understanding the first two commandments – motive. Motive, in my view, is one of the primary distinctive features of servant leadership.
A third passage which supports this conviction is John 13:1-11 – the story of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. Peter was aghast that Jesus would wash his feet. He objected vehemently. But why was Peter upset? He had, no doubt, been the recipient of many foot-washings from low-level servants over his lifetime. So having his feet washed wasn’t the problem. Peter objected because it was Jesus washing his feet. Peter objected to the Person, not the task. He objected to the attitude demonstrated, not the act accomplished. Peter simply couldn’t abide the Leader abasing himself in this way.
Paul later wrote, “Have this attitude in yourselves that was also in Christ Jesus… (Phil. 2:5). We aren’t required to emulate every act by Jesus, but we are called upon to live out His attitude. We may not do every menial task possible in our ministry setting, but there must be no task we consider ourselves above doing.
Servant leadership, then, is about loving God and serving people. It is about proper motive. It is about confronting ambition and putting your followers’ best interests ahead of your gain. It is about right attitude more than specific actions. Study these passages. Memorize key verses (as I have Philippians 2:5-11). Ask God to help you develop a sound core theology of leadership based on these passages and others as appropriate.
<< Return to Archive
Servant Leadership
March 17, 2008
For the next few weeks, we will consider the concept of servant leadership. The term has come to almost be equated with Christian leadership by many. Certainly, Jesus defined leadership in relationship to service (Mark 10:35-45). So it is fair to say that a significant component of Christian leadership is servant leadership.
My problem understanding this concept, however, started many years ago in a seminary classroom. The professor was lecturing on servant leadership as the truest form of leadership, the purest form of Christian leadership. So far, so good. But as he described what he meant by servant leadership, his concept seemed out of kilter with modern church and ministry organizational leadership opportunities and challenges.
In summary, my professor said servant leaders were people who involved themselves in direct ministry, who worked behind the scenes, who did the dirty work. He felt servant leaders were self-effacing, pastoral leaders who visited the sick, cared for the poor, preached the gospel, made disciples, and sacrificed themselves for the good of others. No problem with that model! But, my question was, “Are those the only legitimate expressions of servant leadership?”
My mind wandered from the classroom to the office at the end of the hall. The seminary president had an impressive office, several support staff members, multiple vice-presidents to carry out his initiatives, and leadership responsibilities that required delegating most of the hands-on work of operating the school. “Was it possible,” I wondered, “for the president of a seminary to be a servant leader?” Given the model taught in class, the answer was “no.” Little did I know someday I would have to answer that question personally and in very concrete terms!
But the answer has to be “yes.” If Christian leadership is, at the core, servant leadership then any Christian leadership role must have service as a component. The issue then becomes defining service as it relates to leadership. Is servant leadership defined by the actions a leader performs (as my professor believed) or is it something else? Over the years, I have come to believe it is something else.
The essence of servant leadership is not the actions taken, but the motive driving those actions. This seems to be at the heart of Jesus’ teachings on servant leadership. Next week we will look more closely at key passages of Scripture establishing our understanding of Jesus’ teachings on servant leadership. For now, however, think about this question – “Is Jesus more concerned with my actions or with my motives?” The answer is obvious and underscores our need to be “servant-hearted” leaders who sacrifice for the good of others and the advance of God’s kingdom – no matter the outward actions required of our leadership role.
<< Return to Archive
Leadership and Management
March 10, 2008
By now, if you have been reading each week, you know my working definition of leadership is from a scholarly work by Joseph Rost called
Leadership for the 21st Century. His definition of leadership is:
“leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real change according to their mutual purposes.”
Rost has also defined a compatible but very different discipline. He has defined management as: management is an authority relationship between at least one manager and one subordinate who coordinate their activities to produce and sell particular goods and/or services.
Notice in the chart below, some of the comparisons and contrasts between these two disciplines.
Leadership Management
Influence relationship Authority relationship
Leaders and followers Managers and subordinates
Intend real change Produce and sell goods/services
Intended changes reflect Goods/services result from coordinated
mutual purposes activities
Leadership is about influence; management is about authority. Leadership relationships are defined by terms like leaders and followers; managers and subordinates define management relationships. Leaders intend real change; managers produce or sell goods and/or services. Leaders focus on mutual purposes; managers coordinate production activities.
It might seem from this comparison and contrast, that leadership is somehow more important than management. Not so! Leadership is vital, but management is equally important. It might also seem like different people accomplish leadership and management. This is sometimes true, but not always true. For example, many people consider me a leader. I am frequently asked to speak and write on the subject. But in reality, a lot of what I do is management – coordinating the activities of others to produce a service (leadership training).
Both leadership and management are vital and important disciplines. Don’t discount or devalue either one. But learn the difference and the importance of knowing which skills are required to resolve particular organizational challenges. When staffing your organization, with volunteers or employees, you will need many more managers than leaders. They are vital to effective operation of any enterprise.
<< Return to Archive
Networks and Wealth
March 3, 2008
This is the final installment in these short columns on ten sources of influence in leadership relationships. Developing influence skills is essential. Our working definition of leadership, from
Leadership for the 21st Century by Joseph Rost is:
“leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real change according to their mutual purposes.”
The final two issues are networks and wealth. Like several of the other issues in past weeks, these can be managed for good or manipulated negatively. Both of these are particularly important to understand as followers use them to exert influence in the leadership relationship as well.
Networks can be a source of influence in several positive ways. First, when you develop a leadership network with your core team you experience synergy. Your influence is multiplied through the networks influenced by your team. For example, before I could lead a church to relocate, I had to be sure our entire deacon body was committed to the project. Many in the church (rightly so) trusted “their deacon” more than they trusted me. I was young and unproven. Some of the deacons had been leaders in the church
longer than I had been alive. When my leadership network was unified on the project, the force multiplier for gaining support for the decision was significantly greater.
Another way networks strengthen influence is building a network of counselors and friends who can help you make better decisions. My network of “wise guys” has kept me from making some big mistakes. My influence has grown because this network has helped me “go public” with fewer bad decisions.
Finally, a third appropriate use of networks is to gain credibility for future needs you don’t even know you will have. I once developed a friendship with a couple – the woman was a believer but the man was not – that had profound results. The man was a banker. At a crucial time in our church, we needed a short-term loan to purchase a piece of property that came available to us. I went to see my friend, explained the situation, and got the quick decision we needed. I didn’t create the friendship to get favor, but our friendship gave me the influence to get something done quickly.
Now, what about money? Money can be used to control like – “if you don’t do what I want, I will stop giving to your ministry.” But being entrusted with control over money, in a more positive sense, gives a leader influence. You have the capacity to resource a project, encourage someone, or otherwise make something happen. Entrusting resources to your control is one way your followers demonstrate trust in you and willingness to be led by you. Handle money wisely and you will be given ever more of it manage – and ever more increasing influence as a result. Handle it inappropriately and you will loss credibility it is difficult to regain.
<< Return to Archive