I was on a call, and the image of a wolf pack came to mind. I’ve been fond of wolves for years, and so learned a lot of information about them. One of the lessons is wolf leadership.
Leading the Pack
We often get caught up in the alpha, beta, omega (1st, 2nd, 3rd) order of pack leadership without understanding how that actually plays out in wolf pack functions.
The Alphas may be the leaders of the pack, but that doesn’t mean they always lead. Depending on the situation and the skills or instincts required for navigating the situation, the leadership of the pack will change. This is a temporary change, and doesn’t impact the entirety of pack hierarchy (or at least it usually doesn’t).
One of the big ones I read about was breaking ground after a fresh snowfall, in particular a deep one that is at wolf shoulder or higher depth. There will be one wolf that will break the path for the rest of the pack. Generally, it’s because it’s wider than the others, so that every other wolf can easily follow the path. Sometimes it’s hunting, and it might even be based upon which prey is being hunted.
To my understanding, it is neither by gender nor by overall pack hierarchy, but which individual is best suited to lead off.
From Pack to Ministry
In an ideal ministry context, the same would happen. The best person for teens, youth, children, women, men, would lead. Yet, often people look to the organizational leader (the pastor or pastors) to lead. I get it. When we have one of those leaders in place, we want their approval and assurance that we’re doing it right.
As a pastor, however, I can say that there are certain areas that I have no clue how to lead. Putting me (or expecting me) in charge is not setting the ministry up for success. Yes, a pastor or a person experienced in that ministry might have input, that doesn’t mean they should or could lead.
Sometimes that input might seem to be saying that the leader in question is not doing a good job. Yet, it is often a matter of expectations, and the reality that different people have different expectations and different understandings of success.
Responsible Hierarchy
We’ve all heard of (and perhaps experienced) micromanaging. This is the concept of a person above in the organizational (loosely defined) hierarchy that is very specific directions and will hover over or closely watch a person to make sure that each step is done to the upper-hierarchical person’s expectation.
Often that comes with that “upper” person’s perspective that nobody can do it like they can, and as a consequence it is always a failure.
No one functions well in that environment. Even the “upper” person ends up not functioning well because they are so focused on those “below” them that their responsibilities get missed.
Yet, in ministry, far too many people want a micromanaging pastor/leader, but they really don’t.
Responsible Feedback
As I’m writing this, I see a gap in my own leadership, and that is feedback. All to often, feedback is perceived and experienced as confrontational, rather than what it should be, matching expectations.
I wonder if the pursuit of the “roadmap” of some ministry emphasis is because there is no mechanism of nor expectation for feedback.
There are those ministry leaders that don’t really want feedback (which is an issue, for sure). There are those ministry leaders that want feedback for every little thing (also an issue).
Too Corporate for Church
I suspect that there will be some person that will push back against formalized feedback because it’s too much like how a corporation functions. Yet, what if it’s just a conversation over coffee or food? What if it’s just a question, “How do you think [this ministry] is doing?” There is an equally important question, “how can I/we better support you?”
The second question is often more scary for leaders than one might suppose. It actually means the leader (or questioner) might have some action items when receiving the answer, and might even have to change.
Consequences
I recently read a friend’s post on a situation where they felt deeply hurt because of differing perspectives of how a particular ministry functioned in a particular church setting. As a consequence, they left that church, and (it seems) the church as a whole for at least a time.
I, too, have been hurt by people in the church. I, too, have been hurt by leaders in the church. In most cases, including those I’ve personally witnessed with others, it is how feedback is delivered and received that drives the engine.
Probably half the time, it’s actually how the leader delivers feedback, and how they receive their feedback from those to whom they are giving feedback. Actually, it might be more than half.
I am not saying those leaders were wrong in toto, what I am saying is that expectations were not managed, measured, or even attempted to be agreed upon. That is a leadership issue.
At Least
“At least I’m serving.”
“At least someone is willing to serve.”
Yes, to both statements. Also, ugh. These two statements are the reality at a lot of church, from small to large. Someone fills a role because they are willing, not because they’re the best at it. Sometimes that person can go rogue, too, which puts an additional burden.
But the reality is that churches often have to make that choice of the only person versus not being filled. With so many expectations put on churches that have neither the finances nor the people to do so much, the churches end up putting the only person in, even if it’s a bad fit.
Honestly, I’m wrestling with this one. How should this effect my ministry at my church or the religious org I’m part of? I don’t know. I do know that people take roles because their will not always because they’re able.
