|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith (2 Timothy 4:6-7, ESV).
The Apostle Paul felt pressure from all directions, from travel, sickness, Jews, Romans, false teachers, and even fellow believers. Yet he finished the race. Many current pastors do not.
- Only 1 in 10 pastors will retire as a pastor
- 50 percent of pastors would consider leaving the ministry if they could make a living elsewhere
Many reasons for the pastoral exodus exist, but an author who recently wrote in the Harvard Business Review identifies faulty evaluation as a major cause of leadership disillusionment. Yes, he studied business leaders, but the results apply to churches as well.
The article begins with a story about an entrepreneur leader…
A pattern was clear: “She moves too fast.” “She makes decisions before the rest of us are ready.” “We’re always in catch-up mode.”
Anna’s experience is not unusual. I see this dynamic often across senior leaders I have coached. A leader is told to “show up differently,” “be more strategic,” or “slow down.” When they try to adjust, nothing changes. The feedback stays the same; the narrative stays the same.
The article continues…
The result is predictable. The leader becomes frustrated, while the organization begins to question fit, initiate performance plans, and, in many cases, quietly plan a replacement. The more important question is whether the organization is diagnosing the problem correctly.
Organizations don’t lose great leaders because they are difficult. They lose them because they misdiagnose what makes them difficult. I call this the “evaluation trap.”
Read this summation from the article carefully…
Organizations default to what is most visible—behavior—while the context shaping that behavior remains harder to see. This reflects a well-documented bias: we over-attribute outcomes to individuals and underweight the environment around them. If there is friction, the assumption is simple: The leader is the problem.
The leaders most likely to fall into this trap are not underperformers. They are often the ones the organization depends on most–high-output, highly capable, and frequently described as “brilliant, but….”
What happens next explains the erosion of capable leaders in churches and other organizations…
Leaders then try to invest time and energy trying to fix problems they don’t actually have, often suppressing the very strengths that made them effective. This creates a quiet erosion of confidence and clarity. Some leaders begin to second-guess their instincts and adapt in ways that make them less effective. Many eventually disengage, give up, leave, or are exited.
Within all organizations, there is resistance to change, to new ideas, and to pushing out what can’t be controlled.
Harvard Business Journal continues…
Strong, effective leaders are asked to “tone down” rather than scale their impact.
This is the most misunderstood trap. What looks like a behavior problem is often a systemic constraint–culture, structures, resources, incentives–that blocks a leader’s efforts. The leader appears problematic because the system is resisting them.
This article has a point — a well-researched one — that churches, organizations, and even cities, once alive and growing, lose momentum, fail to adjust to move forward, and too often die. Perhaps it’s not the time to evaluate the leaders, but the organization itself.
We need to encourage leaders, have accountable conversations, and learn to step forward in faith together.