Better Leaders – 2 things to figure out

Of course I can’t resist commenting on any post with the tag “systems” in it. I really think my favorite “skill” to put into practice is designing systems.

Goal: Increase the number of “leaders of leaders” involved in the ministry

Summary:
I. Identify high potential Leaders on a regular basis (and early)
II. Increase their involvement level (CG, m29, leadership team, etc..)
III. Get a gauge of their administrative ability by giving them temporary responsibility
IV. Once you have confidence in their ability, challenge them to one on one discipleship coaching with a goal to prepare them for their future area of leadership.

First:
Sorry, but in my opinion, it will never be “normal” for students to become leaders of leaders. I think it will always be “rare”. If everyone is high on the leadership scale, then there are no leaders of leaders. I don’t know of any other organization, business, or ministry where it is normal for people to become leaders of leaders. In light of their rarity, I think devoting some of the staff meeting prayer time to asking the Lord for these kinds of leaders is a good idea.

So, here’s a stab at a system for finding and developing them:

1) Identify potential leaders of leaders as early as possible. Time is critical in the high-turnover campus ministry. Some ways to do this:
be aware of high leadership potential during follow-up conversations
CG leaders gauge spiritual maturity,
gauge their social maturity, especially their communication skills
widen the search to all class years (some leaders take time to emerge)
be extremely picky
This should probably be a topic that comes up twice a semester for an established ministry (for Arkansas, coinciding with recruiting for m29 classes, etc..)

2) Test potential leaders by casting vision for their increased involvement in the ministry. In order to lead the ministry’s leaders, they normally need to have experience: being in a community group, getting involved in m29 equipping, coming to your retreats and conferences. The exception might be for leaders who are leading pioneering efforts (Bridges, etc..). If they are unwilling or unavailable to increase their level of involvement in these ways after you have encouraged and challenged them personally, your time is probably better spent elsewhere.

3) After they have demonstrated interest and commitment by being involved at a certain level, leaders of leaders need to be given opportunities to demonstrate and develop administrative-type competency on a temporary basis. I.E., put them in charge of something, give them some direction and supervision, and see how they do. On the Santa Cruz Project, we put all our potential leaders-of-leaders on the same committee to plan and execute a social, with a high-potential guy and girl in charge. They are given lots of direction up front, but they have to make it happen. If a staff leader is on this team, it will give them the chance to interact and get to know personally these top potential leaders. I’m sure you could brainstorm ways to create this type of situation for your campus. The idea is that leaders emerge faster when there is some type of tangible “problem” or task that needs doing.

4) In my opinion, for an established campus, you would only challenge someone into a “leader-of-leaders” type role if they: have been involved with the ministry at least a year, have been a community group leader for at least one semester, are on your student leadership team, and have demonstrated administrative competence in a temporary situation (summer project leadership-type position, above-mentioned social committee, planned and executed an outreach with a team, etc…). If you are still identifying them as leaders-of-leaders, there will probably be few enough of them that with your staff and current leaders-of-leaders combined you are able to start discipling (coaching) them one on one to get them ready to step into the leader-of-leader role at the beginning of the next academic year cycle. If you are pioneering a new area, it should probably be staff discipleship where you plan for their future role in that undeveloped area and do evangelism within it; if a currently existing area, the current leader of that area would be a good person for them to learn from.

What am I missing?

Good thoughts Andrew – thanks for taking the time to write them out.

I agree that not everyone will become a leader of leaders. But I think we can do a LOT better job at thinking about how to grow that number.

For instance, this year we started with 10 students that are empowering other students to lead (the students they are pouring into are, in turn, pouring into others thru discipleship or bible study). Our goal is to grow that number to 20 by the end of this year. And to have 100 of those students in 5 years.

So we’re definitely trying to figure this out.

I really like your thought: “The idea is that leaders emerge faster when there is some type of tangible “problem” or task that needs doing.”

On #2, I wonder if the answer is just to cast vision in general. Always be casting vision for multiplication. That you would not only do ministry but raise up others to do ministry.

And on #4, I wonder if there’s a way to speed up the process. It would be messier, but I wonder if we can start with freshmen becoming leaders of leaders??

I think it’s a great idea of having that tangible problem to allow the students to develop ownership.

We are bringing in “The Maze” this spring and there is a lot to do within that. From publicity to the actual day of, there will be a lot to organize and think through. I believe we will have students who run teams which have students on those teams. It will be fun to see who rises to the top on a lot of the little things. That will show us a lot. Not that a big evangelistic event will always be the key to surfacing more leaders, but I believe there is potential.

In addition, what would it look like to have some leadership elements in the first level of M29? Would that be too broad, considering not everyone is a leader who enters that class?

#2 – I think more vision would be helpful, but not on the mass level. You already seem to do that fairly well. The vision casting needs to happen more on the personal level – CG leaders casting vision for what it is you’re looking for in their groups, and one-on-one discipleship vision casting, where the mentor casts a real, personalized vision for someone based on what they have observed about him/her.

#4 – The only way I can imagine that happening without a decrease in quality is if they are leading something more narrowly defined than what your current leaders-of-leaders are leading. I would think that the very earliest they would lead anything on a permanent basis would be after their first semester, because it takes a semester to even begin to form a community, make decisions about what you’re going to be involved in, get used to the new college world, etc… it almost seems wrong to ask first semester freshmen to become “leaders of leaders” besides just the first step of getting involved in a CG, etc…

Honestly, I think it would be really hard even for second semester freshmen, because that would mean they would be leading some of their class peers who in turn were leading other freshmen class peers. I can’t envision that working out relationally or logistically; I think the best thing is to take a long-term view of what developing a leader looks like and try to get people into that long-term process as soon as possible (as defined above).

You know, actually, just ask your current leaders of leaders if they think they could be doing the kinds of things they are doing now when they were second-semester freshmen. I have to say no, because they were “in process” – learning and experiencing the things that would later make them a good leader.

I have so many thoughts swirling around about leadership that I’ll probably end up trying to process it for myself on the blog someday. But I guess I’ll stick with that for now.

Finally – you have 10 LoL (leaders of leaders, lol) now, but how many of those will graduate this year? Whatever system you design, I think it has to acknowledge both the time it takes to develop a LoL and account for their replacement, especially if you are trying to grow the number. I do like to think about what would happen if you made significant progress towards your goal though: If your 10 LoLs can manage a movement of 300, then 100 should be a large number.

If I were you, I would sit down with piece of paper during my planning time, and I would imagine a test case of 1 incoming freshman. And I would write, in order, the kinds of things that I would want that freshman to experience that would lead them to become a leader of leaders, assuming that the freshman has potential but just hasn’t given any of their involvement decisions much thought yet , and figure out how long that would take.

PS – I spaced twice after all of the above periods.

I always space twice. Then go back and delete each space. So hard to change. So I end up spacing twice half the time then switching to single space mid paragraph. Nice and clean.

#2 I agree it should happen more on a one-on-one level. Brian McCollister at Ohio says they strive to cast vision EVERY time they meet with a student.

#4 – you’re right. I think the step for freshmen would be just be to see themselves as leaders (inviting their friends to CG, Cru; sharing their faith) . Then to lead in a greater way their sophomore year fall semester (co-leading a CG, discipling). Then Soph Spring semester would be the earliest they might become leaders of leaders (guy they disciple starts to share his faith and lead his friends). More likely fall of Junior year.

12 of our current 19 LoL’s are seniors. At the beginning of the year, 7 of our 10 were.

Maybe instead of leadership elements, just vision to be Leaders of Leaders. Just casting vision that “when we talk about being a leader in Cru, we mean someone who shares their faith, prays for the lost/world, and leads a Community Group. But more than that, we mean someone who does all that AND raises up 5 friends to do that with them. A leader is someone who not only involves themselves in God’s Mission but empowers others to do the same.”

I think a hard thing with all of this is that student’s can’t always see their own potential, and that’s where the staff come in. Seeing someone’s potential to do big things, and pushing them to do it could be huge. I think vision casting comes in big time there. But not only vision casting, but other student’s modeling that for them.

For freshman, we’ve talked about having them “know and experience” cru. That’s our goal for them- that they will feel part of us, and we think that’s a huge key in getting them to lead. I think a lot of what we are working on is from Brian McCollister via Newp. Having them know and experience things involve a combination of bringing them with us to share our faith a few times a year, meeting with them a few times a year, and having them help run an event to help them own things. So we have goals/ desires like this for each class now, hoping that things will become the norm. Then, hopefully in some ways it ends up becoming a “system”.

Sometimes I think that what makes this conversation confusing for me is equating the term “leader” with “spiritual multiplier”. Although there is a lot of overlap, in my mind I am always trying to separate the two concepts.

When I think of “multiplier” I think:

* is actively praying for the lost, sharing their faith and making disciples, with a view to helping them do the same.
* in my mind, almost anyone has the capacity by God’s grace to be a multiplier, because it’s part of a Scriptural command (Mt 28, etc.)

When I think of “leader” I think:

* organized, good vision-caster / motivator, initiator, effective manager
* good communication and people skills; people respect them and follow them
* set the pace by being a good example of what they are leading people towards
* in my mind, people are on a leadership spectrum. some have higher potential than others. the higher you go on the spectrum, the rarer that person will be.
* can be improved through education and experience
* all else equal, being a better leader increases your effectiveness in accomplishing whatever goal or task is before you
* There is no biblical imperative to reach a certain level on the leadership spectrum, though you may become a better leader as a matter of course in obedience to other biblical imperatives. (In other words, it is obedience and faithfulness, not effectiveness, that is the measure of discipleship).

So what’s the relationship between the two?
All else being equal, you will be a more effective spiritual multiplier if you are a better leader. This does not mean that you are being more faithful than another spiritual multiplier who is not as effective.

What’s the implication for ministry?
Leadership ability is a variable that, if increased, will increase effectiveness in ministry, all else being equal. X + Y = Z. Increase X, increase Z. Therefore, it’s a good strategy to use limited time and resources to turn natural leaders into multipliers or develop the leadership ability of current multipliers, because doing so will hypothetically reach more people IF all else is held equal.

What’s the danger?
The danger is making the terms “leader” and “multiplier” synonymous. It’s almost the same thing as making “leader” and “Christ-follower” synonymous. Because of the above connotations of the word “leader”, in my opinion students shouldn’t equate “leadership” with “biblical faithfulness”. They SHOULD (IMO) equate being a multiplier with biblical faithfulness.
The other, perhaps more significant, danger of confusing the two is that in the discipleship equation X+Y = Z, where X is leadership, there is a more important variable. And that is Y = biblical faithfulness (Christ-likeness). In man-centered wisdom, X would definitely be the more important variable translating into effectiveness, because it is what the world values and respects. But a survey of the scripture quickly points to Y being the variable that is far more likely to result in increased effectiveness in ANY kind of ministry. The natural way for God to work throughout scripture is to bless obedience and faithfulness in SPITE of worldly weaknesses, because this results in God’s name being glorified.

My point is not to say that we shouldn’t focus on raising up better leaders. On the contrary, I think it’s essential. But I think it should be in right proportion to our developing biblically faithful, Christ-centered disciples, because ultimately they are far more likely to be effective from a God-centered view of effectiveness. And I think these things are true not just for a campus ministry, but for the church at large.

The objection to all of this may be that the word “leader” is being used to describe all of these things, but in my opinion that just creates confusion because biblical imperatives and business concepts are being fused in a way that it becomes hard to distinguish what is more important or what is even being referred to.

Thanks for reading, I’m open to clarification and correction.

Well said, thanks Andrew. You hit the nail on the head when you wrote about distinguishing the difference between “leader” and “spiritual multiplier” within conversations like these – I think that’s the hardest part in all of this. Obviously everyone wants to be effective and wants to do the best they can with what they have, as well as being innovative. I hope we all can raise up better leaders than we currently are.
I appreciate your thoughts.

Good thoughts Andrew. I agree, there is a distinction between the two. But in some ways, its inevitable to be confusion between the two “types”.

Students want to be leaders in Cru and we continually point them to the idea that being a leader in Cru = Being a spiritual multiplier (as opposed to having a title). But being an effective spiritual multiplier will always involve, as you said, “good communication and people skills; people respect them and follow them” Because spiritual multiplication is a relational process.

Do you think that we need to think thru that better as far as clarity in calling it all “leadership”? In my mind I want them to think Leadership=Spiritual Multiplication. When they graduate and start serving in a church I want them to think Leadership=Spiritual Multiplication (not just having a title like Deacon or Parking Lot Attendant or 3rd Grade Sunday School Teacher).

So, we primarily talk about how Leadership=Spiritual Multiplication. With a secondary focus on exponentially increasing your effectiveness by becoming a “better leader”.

Maybe Y * X = Z.
I think the “becoming a better leader” of X has a multiplying effect.

Also, forgot to add this link for those of you who want to look more into reconciling these two types of leadership (although from a different angle).

What’s Best Next blog has a phenomenal (and really long) article on how Christians should approach managing (or, I’d say, leading).
http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2011/01/management-in-light-of-the-supremacy-of-god/

Good thoughts.

I think you’re right; confusion between the two types is somewhat inevitable when the term leadership encompasses so much and is used in so many different ways.

So, what can leadership mean so far?
1) Being a good example of something
2) Being good at mobilizing / working with people
3) Managing a specific area of responsibility

I’m sure it can mean even more.

Should we equate leadership and spiritual multiplication?

To avoid turning this into a novel, here’s my take:

1) Spiritual multiplication is great leadership, because you are setting an example in making disciples for others to follow. EVERYONE needs to pursue this kind of leadership, because everyone is biblically called to make disciples, just as everyone should pursue being a leader through cultivating Christ-like character. The method of spiritual multiplication may, of course, look different depending on the context.
I think it would be accurate to say that the single greatest contribution of CCC to the Church is calling and equipping believers to be obedient in witnessing to Christ and making disciples, or “spiritually multiplying”. When we talk about “raising up leaders”, I think this is what we are most commonly referring to. “Better leaders”, then, means more effective disciple-makers.

2) People are along a spectrum of “natural leadership ability” (perhaps some being in the negative!). Let’s call people with high natural leadership ability “natural leaders” (we’ve used the term people-gatherers before to refer to what I think is the same thing.) When we say we want to “raise up leaders” we are not primarily referring to natural leaders, though I agree with you that natural leadership ability is an exponential factor in effectiveness at making disciples (if all else is equal). Because we believe it makes a big difference in effectiveness, we devote effort to attracting natural leaders, discipling them, and developing everyone’s natural leadership ability.

3) Some people in the ministry are given specific areas of responsibility: “weekly meeting coordinator”, “dorm leader”, “student staff”. These people become “leaders” of these areas of responsibility. We aren’t talking about this specifically when we say “raise up leaders”. BUT, people who are leaders by Christ-like example and who have high natural leadership ability are best for these roles.

So, back to the original question: How do we raise up better leaders than came before? Based on the above, I am interpreting this question to mean, “How do we develop people who are more effective at making disciples?” Clearly, developing natural leadership ability is an important factor, because, as you said, spiritual multiplication is “relational”.

Here’s why I think this isn’t just semantics: I would submit that, however important, this “factor” in developing better leaders is secondary to another “factor”. That factor is the faith and godliness of the person. It almost always seems to trump natural leadership, because it takes natural leadership and sanctifies it for spiritual purposes! The Spirit of God is the power for effectiveness in disciple-making. Prayer, a godly life, and bold dependence on God are the primary keys to raising up better leaders.

But yeah, who would deny that? The problem though is that our language and method can give the impression that we believe natural leadership development and recruiting natural leaders is THE key to effectiveness in disciple-making and what we need to focus our attention on.

I believe that our efforts to recruit and develop natural leaders should be subordinate to our efforts to develop biblical faithfulness through the knowledge of God, all the way down to the very practical level. I know that natural leadership and biblical faithfulness and godliness are not mutually exclusive; maybe I am making too much of a distinction. But I think the point of emphasis in ministry is important, and sometimes I feel as though natural leadership becomes the point of emphasis.

I hope some of this at least adds to the discussion. I am going to check out that article, and I also want to read D.A. Carson’s “The Cross and Christian Leadership” as well as J. Oswald Sanders “Spiritual Leadership” sometime soon.

Hmmm. . . I’m not sure you avoided your “novel”

Great points, and great summary – “however important, this “[Natural Leadership] factor” in developing better leaders is secondary to another “[Spiritual] factor”.”
AND
“Prayer, a godly life, and bold dependence on God are the primary keys to raising up better leaders.”
I totally agree – as you said – who would deny that?
And I also agree that our language and method can give the impression that we, like Samuel, look on the outward appearance more than looking at the heart.

Here’s a (not very well thought through) thought and then a situation for you (and others) to give your input on:

Thought- maybe Cru, Community Groups and Church are for developing Biblical Faithfulness.
And Discipleship and M29 Leadership Training are more geared toward talking more about selection based on natural leadership.
Even if that was the case, we’d have to do a better job of communicating vision on how each aspect develops a student (not just assume that our student leaders will figure that out).

Situation: let me play Devil’s advocate for a moment and be very practical:
Given the option, who would you pursue – the godly, nerdy quiet freshman; or the freshman with the magnetic personality that everyone is drawn to? Because I think we daily have to choose. Obviously we’d go 1st for the Godly Magnetic Personality freshman. But if we have to choose, should we:
A) Seek to develop godly kids in their people skills
B) Seek to develop natural leaders in their understanding of God and His Mission?

You should have seen it before I edited it, I basically deleted it and started over again.

That’s a good thought. Let me see if I can sort out what I think… or what I think I think.

It seems helpful to describe CCC’s purpose on a campus in two ways:

1) Develop and sustain a gospel outpost that witnesses to and saturates the entire campus.

2) Raise up spiritual leaders to help the church reach the world.

The second is a primary method for accomplishing the first, but it involves much more, because it is our hope that they would be spiritual leaders the rest of their lives, carrying the scope of this goal beyond the first, which is why I think they should be articulated separately.
I think these two statements justify the specialization and need for a ministry like CCC on a campus. I intentionally didn’t put “developing biblical disciples” because that is the broad mission of ALL of the church, including CCC. For CCC, this development comes in the context of the ministry seeking to accomplish its special mission. It is intentionally not taking on itself all of the responsibilities for discipleship of the church.

Now, the question is: how to raise up spiritual leaders? You present the choice of selecting natural leaders to develop biblical faithfulness in, or selecting godly people with no natural leadership ability and attempting to grow their natural leadership skills. That’s a crux of this entire discussion: with limited time, how do I select who to pour into?

I definitely think that effective spiritual leadership involves a degree of natural leadership ability. Therefore, I agree that better natural leaders should be given priority in selection IF all else is equal. But, as you know, all else is never equal, and I believe there should be another weightier factor mixed in WITH the selection process, and that is godliness. The reason is because I believe godliness and faithfulness contributes more to success.

So to your hypothetical: if my only choice is between a 10 godly / 0 natural leader and a 10 natural leader / 0 godly, I’m going to develop the godly guy in my allotted time for discipleship, and evangelize the natural leader in my allotted time for evangelism, or get him in a CG . Now, let’s say the guy comes to Christ and becomes a 10 L / 4 G. That MAY make him a better candidate for selection, but do you see what I am doing? I am selecting based on TWO criteria, not one, and giving some weight to the criteria of biblical faithfulness.

So, I don’t think “selection based on natural leadership” should be all that it is that we are doing. I think any spiritual leadership development program, no matter where it is, should select based on several weighted factors. Here’s how I’d put it off the top of my head (greatest to least weight):
Godliness / Natural Leadership / Commitment level

There may be others but I think those are really important for any spiritual leadership development.

And then, once you have selected them, your training efforts would be in proportion to those factors – in other words, your highest priority is to develop their Christian character, and your next to highest priority is to develop their natural leadership ability.

Selection, though, really only applies to one-on-one mentoring and qualification for areas of responsibility (like leading a CG). I would view your venues like Cru, CGs, M29, etc.. as ways to mass develop spiritual leadership for as many who will come. I wouldn’t apply selection to M29 Equipping (though you could to Leadership) which is one of the reasons why I’m glad we separated them.

Am I making any sense?

Off topic, but I believe the way I’ve framed the two goals of the ministry could also go a long way toward facilitating a better understanding of CCC’s relationship to local churches and therefore opening up more ways to partner both ways.

So I wouldn’t say something like, “This is our venue for developing spiritual maturity” and “this is our venue for developing natural leadership”. Instead, I would see all of your venues as developing SPIRITUAL leadership (godliness, natural leadership), except you select in some venues to to focus on more mature spiritual leaders (determined by selection principles above) in order to increase effectiveness.

[...] Here’s the post. [...]