The Proper Focus of Leadership: Organizational or Individual?

1) Are leaders of any organization primarily responsible for each and every individual within their organization, or are they primarily responsible for the well-being of the organization as a whole?
If I understand the question correctly, I believe leaders are primarily responsible for the organization as a whole. For example, it wouldn’t make sense to spend all our time helping one person while neglecting everyone else. Having said that, I don’t think this is an issue that would arise very often (unless you have a specific example I haven’t thought of), because generally, focusing on the individuals in the organization will strengthen the organization as a whole.

2) Are Mormon leaders (from Stake Presidents and Bishops and Relief Society Presidents and Sunday School teachers to The Prophet and apostles) different than leaders of secular organizations in this regard?
No. Mormon leaders are different from secular leaders in our mission, but our accountability is comparable to secular leaders. If God is the Board of Directors, then everything we do as we interact with the members of the organization is answerable to Him. If we destroy the organization as a whole, he’ll hold us accountable. Also, if we do not perform the mission of the organization-preparing members to return to Him-we will be accountable.

3) Is there a tension between these possible emphases? Hypothetically, maybe; but I can’t think of a specific instance. The closest thing I can think of is a girl in our YW organization who was mean to the other girls and made them feel bad/cry/not want to come. The leaders confronted the “problem” girl and she started going to another ward. Some may say that it was best for the organization as a whole to let the Problem go; but I think-perhaps naively-that the best solution could have been found in better leadership. A leader could focus on each of the individual girls, including the Problem, and the organization could thrive even with the problem girl.

But as mere mortals, we have our petty pride to gratify, we are often untrained in tact, and the ideal leader is hard or impossible to find.

4) If so, how can they be harmonized – or can they be harmonized?
If we focus on the individuals, the organization thrives.

5) How do these questions affect our understanding of accountability – both on a communal and individual level?
(See #2 above)

6) What other questions arise from the first three questions – and what do you feel the answers are to these other questions?
One question that arises from my example in #3 is whether it is OK to sacrifice an individual for the sake of the organization. I think it is usually unnecessary.

I was always of the understanding that leaders of a church organization are responsible TO the members of the organization, but that they were responsible FOR the organization as a whole.

I had a stake president who frequently explained to us that leaders of an organization do not represent the members of the organization before God, nor should they feel it their responsibility to deliver the concerns of their membership to the next higher level. Leaders of an organization represent God to the organization, but that they are not a “link” in a chain of communication going “up”, only down. Leaders, he said, stand facing their members, delivering God’s message to the members, they do not stand facing God, delivering the message of the members to God. He told us frequently that if we would keep this perspective in mind, we would understand church leadership better.

Andrew said, “Leaders, he said, stand facing their members, delivering God’s message to the members, they do not stand facing God, delivering the message of the members to God.”

I agree. We do not necessarily answer to the members of Church organizations regarding how we lead (personal offenses excepted), but we are answerable to God for how we lead the members of the organization. Continuing the sheep analogy, we don’t try to do what either the lost sheep or the ninety and nine want; we try to do what God wants with the lost sheep and the ninety and nine.

When Jesus Christ called the twelve disciples from among the Nephites, he told the assembled crowd:

“Blesses are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants…” (3 Nephi 12:1)

I find this a very appealing directive to the leadership of the church. You have been chosen to minister and serve. As you read more of this chapter, it becomes clear (at least to me) that those leaders were there to help the membership connect with Christ. They were to officiate in the ordinance of baptism and teach the people what they needed to do to come unto Christ. It seems we have moved far away from this concept in today’s church. I agree it has become very corporate, focused on the financial bottom line more than it should be. We have brought in doctors, lawyers, and business men to run a multi-billion dollar enterprise rather than ministers and servants to bring the people to God.

How does Christ define his Church? I have come to deeply appreciate the message in D&C 10:67-68:

“Behold, this is my doctrine whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.”

What would the leadership and the church look like if this dictate from the head of the Church were followed?

I would think that the focus would be on teaching the individual member what it means to come unto Christ, and then get out of the way.

“Leaders, he said, stand facing their members, delivering God’s message to the members, they do not stand facing God, delivering the message of the members to God.”

This has also been a theme of President Harold B. Lee and Boyd K. Packer. http://www.zionsbest.com/face.html

See also Elder James Hamula (“I also learned at that moment which way I should be facing as a leader. It was my job to face the people and tell them what the Lord wanted, not to face the other way, with the people behind me, telling the leaders ahead of me what the people wanted.”)
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/cgi-bin/cqcgi/@cnews.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=LVVZPSDEQXRW&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=3&CQ_TEXT_MAIN=YES (requires subscription)

I personally think a mid-level leader in the Church should face both ways–conveying concerns of those whom he or she serves to those “above” and vice versa. At least one Old Testament prophet, Moses, was not afraid to represent his people in speaking to God. Exodus 32:

7 ¶ And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
8 They have turned aside bquickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
11 And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Any thoughts on how this plays out in disciplinary councils? It’s interesting to consider what everyone has said about individuality at the lowest institutional level and administration as the level rises, and I wonder if that plays a part in the disciplinary culture within the Church.

In my experiences in disciplinary councils (at a ward level–I was the clerk taking notes, not an “official” member), the focus has been on the individual and helping him/her come back. Every one I was involved with was a positive experience at the time, although once we later felt we made the wrong decision because the member was not very truthful. In that case, we erred on the side of mercy/the individual.

Ray and Jeff,
My understanding is that a stake disciplinary council is required to excommunicate a MP holder, but that a ward disciplinary council can be held for a MP holder if the likely outcome is disfellowshipment or less.

I really think the key difference between the two levels of church courts lies not in the role of the judge (minister v. administrator), but rather in the folks who are the subject of the court. Women, AP holders, girls, young children and MP holders who are not likely to be excommunicated are less likely to have committed as egregious sins as the MP men (a generalization, to be sure, but one I think holds up pretty well – especially in a church where we note the sisters are often more spiritual). Also, a higher standard is expected for example, of a 43-year old high priest who is an endowed member and serving on the high council, than is expected of a 18-year-old who has yet to be ordained an elder.

And, I think Jeff is right in pointing out that the MP types are more likely to feel they have more to lose, but I never once witnessed anyone lash out or take a combative attitude. In several of the cases of excommunication (or rebaptism) of an adult endowed male, the subject of the court knew EVERYBODY in the room. That can help.

Again, however, I do recognize that men are more likely to adopt the “I’m right” attitude toward those they see as their peers, (almost an “Up Yours”) whereas the sisters who might take that attitude toward their bishop, would likely never bother to show up for the court, because of the “imbalance” and not feeling she would be among her peers.

But, I really don’t get the sense of difference between minister and administrator. And, for what it’s worth. I’ve know several stake presidents who passed off as many of the administrative things as they could to counselors, high council, clerks, etc. and did the ministering thing. They were “modeling” the behavior they wanted from their bishops. And, I’ve know some bishops who were more administrator than minister, so I really don’t think it is incumbent in the position.

I’m waiting for Ray to be called as a stake president, then after a year or so, he can report from first-hand experience.

Let me say, again, thanks for all of the comments. I have enjoyed them, even though my day has kept me away from the computer more than usual.

I agree completely with the idea that we hear more about stake and above level councils because they are the ones that deal most often with the unrepentant, even though there are repentant members in those types of councils. Honestly, I had never thought about the ministering nature of the “ideal” disciplinary council for the penitent as directly opposed to the administering nature of a council held with the certainty that someone would be excommunicated – as the opposite sides of the same coin – and how that might relate to the level at which they are held. I’m still thinking about it, so I appreciate the input.

I’m still interested in times when ministering to the one might actually be harmful to the ninety-and-nine, so if anyone has insight there I would like to hear it, as well.

“I’m still interested in times when ministering to the one might actually be harmful to the ninety-and-nine, so if anyone has insight there I would like to hear it, as well.”

Ray–maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are grasping for reasons to NOT minister to the ‘one’. What is the motivation for this? Or are you thinking that there isn’t a case where ministering to the ‘one’ would be harmful to the ninety-and-nine and you are just looking for feedback on this?

One more thing:

I see a big difference in the kind of individualized messages we get in a ward setting, the slightly less individualized message in a stake setting and the much more universal messages we get in General Conference. At the ward level, there can be nuance and personally unique applications, but at the global level the messages can appear to be black and white directives that don’t allow for individual nuance – even when the speakers include multiple disclaimers. The tension inherent in hearing the globally standardized directive but not the disclaimers (or even of presenting the standard without disclaimers) fascinates me.

“some people were upset that their own individual takes on certain practices weren’t being validated by their leaders – that uniformity of the group was overriding individual wishes.”

The thing that needs to be carefully considered here is the definition of the ‘group’. Suppose that there are 100 people who are somewhat willing to be members of the church. 20 are the full fledged believe-it-all sort of people. Another 20 seem to believe it all, but aren’t willing to dedicate all of their time, talents to the cause. Another 20 have some belief in the doctrine, but believe that the church is wrong on particular issues (WOW, SSM, etc.) Another 20 think that the church is a good social organization, but don’t actually believe any of the doctrine. Another 20 would really prefer not to participate in the church, but may be willing to tag along with family/friends.

If you exclude everyone from the group except the 20 most dedicated people, you would end up with excellent uniformity in the group. The group would be small, though. As you become more accomidating to the other groups, you may grow in size but lose uniformity. If you try to accomodate everyone, you will find that you may lose the original 20-40 that were your ‘base’.

It is not uncommon to have wards where over 50% of the membership of the church is inactive. Is this because the church is focused on the minority and is not doing enough to work with the majority?

#34 – BINGO!! (at least in identifying the tension about which I posted)

Where is the line between acceptable compromise of communal standards in order to accommodate individuals? What can be compromised without hurting the community as a whole, and what needs to be held inviolable even if it means keeping the individual outside of “full fellowship”?

Which policy changes would hurt the community as a whole?

What if the FP came out with a statement that said that the WOW was optional (as stated in scripture). Would that hurt the community? How?

#36–”Don’t be silly.”

If you are implying that most people are inactive simply due to lacking an invitation, I think that you are the one being silly. Half of the membership of the church is inactive. There are lots of reasons, but a simple invitation isn’t going to bring them all back.

#40–”Why don’t we discount tithing while we are at it.”

Good idea.

“I think the majority of the reason people are inactive is that they have become secularized, don’t see a need for the Gospel in their lives and would rather do something other than attend Church”

This is what I call ‘views’. Their ‘views’ aren’t in line with the orthodox religious views of the church. What if the church was focused more on helping families–whether or not those families actually believed in God? Maybe these people would see value in the church, even if they had no interest in religion.

For those who weren’t religiously inclined, maybe the church could sponsor a sunday afternoon activity for families. If you like the 3 hours of normal church, you can go that route. If you aren’t religious, go to the church sponsored picnic instead. There would be fun family time, community involvement, and a generally positive relationship with the church. And maybe some day these people would become interested in religion…

I could see group gatherings on Sunday as not in violation of the Sabbath as long as they didn’t turn into just another excuse to play sports and extend Saturday into the Sunday hours, but it would be impossible in most locations to hold them at the church – and holding them elsewhere likely would eliminate those members who attend the regular meetings. That could turn into perceptions of “Mormonism” and “Mormonism Lite”. It is hard enough to battle natural pride without a group that would draw such a distinction without effort.

Otoh, I think I understand and share your concern. If these activities were organized on days other than Sunday . . . they would be what the Church actually encourages.

I do believe we need to do a better job of talking with those who don’t attend about ways that they might be willing to be involved in things outside of the Sunday block of meetings. If they don’t attend those meetings, they do tend to be written off as “inactive” and not given opportunities to serve in the overall kingdom.

“Why must we be THAT inclusive as to lose ourselves?”

I think that this is the whole question that Ray is asking. Where is the line between being inclusive and losing ourselves?

Great question, Andrew, about Wednesday night basketball. I have a HUGE problem with it – the exact on you describe. There are much better ways to reach out than to dilute within.

#50, “Those who desire a watered down Church . . . would … tire of that as well . . . .”

Ok, that’s probably true. But, I think Ray’s question is, are there ANY things we can do differently that DON’T constitute “watering down” the Church, but that WOULD help retain more (recognizing we’ll never retain ALL).

For example, Elder Hales has an article in this month’s Ensign about grooming and dressing standards. Hawkgrrl commented on a “casual” Protestant church in her neighborhood. Where is the line between wearing a crisp white, long-sleeved shirt, with a recently pressed and cleaned charcoal gray pin-stripe suit, a beautiful silk tie, and highly polished black shoes and coming to church in shorts, a T-shirt and backless sandals? Clearly there is a line SOMEWHERE between those two, but where is the line? How about if the suit is a little wrinkled from being crammed in the closet improperly? How about wearing a polo shirt instead of a T-shirt with the sandals. How about a cream-colored shirt under your suit coat? How about a red shirt? How about a tie with Donald Duck? How about wearing your hair “just a little” too long?

Obviously, there are extremes when dealing with these kinds of things, and we need to be careful, but there is a line somewhere, and we should have some way to define it, agree on it, and move forward.

And, the feminist in me insists that I point out that the focus and emphasis that some people put on how meticulously entire families are dressed, can be very hard on the mom, who is usually (although not always) the person “held responsible” for the appearance of her family at church on Sunday. Boy, did I get one of those looks that only a Mormon wife can give when I told her I was going to church in my pajamas once, because I was too tired to get dressed. Needless to say, I got dressed. (She later told me that she MIGHT have let me get away with it if I hadn’t been conducting in Sacrament meeting that day, but I don’t think she would have.)

“Where is the line between wearing a crisp white, long-sleeved shirt, with a recently pressed and cleaned charcoal gray pin-stripe suit, a beautiful silk tie, and highly polished black shoes and coming to church in shorts, a T-shirt and backless sandals?”

What exactly is wrong with the “shorts, a T-shirt and backless sandals” end of the spectrum? Do we have to ‘capitulate on doctrines’ or ‘water down’ the church to welcome people who come dressed this way? Would more people come to church if they could dress more comfortably? Would a congregation half full of ‘pajama people’ turn other people away?

Secular Humanists have standards, they’re just not obscured with supernatural gods and dogma.

#48:

As Orson Scott Card noted in Saintspeak

Spaulding Theory

This theory holds that if a young man in the church touches a basketball at least 1,000 times in a Church cultural hall, he will eventually go on a mission.

Outside as in a picnic? If that’s what you mean, I agree. That’s one I just don’t get.

Nice, Jeff! That made me laugh.