After working closely with two congregations, I have noticed similar problems develop. Interestingly enough, many of these problems do not stem from differences in doctrine or theology. Rather, they stem from the “managerial style" being employed. The responsibility of management is inherent in the role of an overseer. How one functions in that role will contribute to the elimination of or to the creation of problems.

The kinds of problems to which I am referring center around a lack of effective communication. This leads to a deep sense of frustration and ultimately ends in resignation. With no clear voice, the sheep scatter. Very quickly, members become frustrated and dramatically back off on their level of involvement. Deacons also experience a high level of frustration. Often, the intensity of the frustration convinces them they have no other alternative but resignation. Staff experience similar situations and choose similar solutions. Even among elders, the temptation of throwing in the towel becomes overwhelming. Each of these is a red flag indicating something is wrong. When these red flags begin appearing, evaluating the cause is critical. The starting place is within the leadership. What type of leadership is being demonstrated? What managing philosophy is being utilized? These questions must be addressed quickly. Otherwise, Satan will have a field day wreaking havoc upon the body.

Not long ago, a sense of frustration began developing within the congregation where I preach. Problems erupted among the deacons as well as among the staff. Even the shepherds began showing severe signs of discouragement. We immediately sought God's help for answers. Some of our study took us to Exodus 18 where Moses received wise counsel from his father-in-law, Jethro. He observed whenever the people had a dispute, they brought it directly to Moses (from morning to evening). Upon seeing this ((managerial style," Jethro said, "The thing that you are doing is not good" (vs. 17). He explains in vs. 18 that Moses would surely wear out both himself and the people. lt was just an approach which put too heavy a burden upon him. "You can not do it alone" was Jethro's final statement prior to offering a solution. In verses 19 - 23 he describes for Moses a more effective and efficient "managerial approach." Select men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain. Jethro suggested placing these men as leaders of thousands, and of hundreds, and of fifties, and of tens. Verses 24 - 26 show this was favorable in the sight of Moses and it was precisely what he did.

This reminded us of a New Testament occurrence in Acts 6. The early Christians were apparently neglecting the Hellenistic Jewish widows in the daily serving of food. This created a serious complaint within the body. In verses 2 - 4, the apostles heard the complaint and summoned the congregation of disciples together. They said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, frill of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." In what could be considered among the greatest of all miracles contained in scripture, vs. 5 tells us this found approval with the whole congregation. It is also noteworthy that, after adopting this "managerial philosophy," the apostles apparently solved the problem so that it never arose again.

It just makes sense that the delegating of responsibilities to a larger number of responsible people will accomplish a greater amount in a more efficient and effective way. Jethro saw it. Moses saw it. The apostles saw it.

The whole congregation, at that time, saw it. Now the question remains, do we see it?

God's word provides a pattern for proper leadership. We have applied this pattern principle to so many of our positions. Yet, we have failed in applying it to our management approach. To the degree we ignore or neglect this pattern, we bring upon ourselves the consequences. That has always been the case when God's people forsook His pattern.

The following chart illustrates four possible approaches to management. Self evaluation of which approach you are using is important. However, perhaps it is even more important which approach others perceive you are using.

What is your managing philosophy? How do you view it? How do others view it? Regardless of what you may think, you are operating under one of the four philosophies illustrated above. The first philosophy is a very controlling type of management. It represents controlling to the extreme. ALL decisions are under the thumb of this type of management. The leadership with this managerial style" becomes embarrassed if asked about any facet of the work and is unable to give a frill and detailed explanation. This is a very stifling form of managing. It squelches the talents and abilities of any subordinate. As a matter of fact, this type of managing approach leaves many who are working under it feeling very unnecessary. If every overseer is in a position of knowing every detail about everything that is happening within the congregation, then there cannot be a great deal happening. This is precisely the situation Jethro saw and pronounced to be NO GOOD for Moses or the people.

In the second philosophy, a leader makes an attempt in the right direction, but falls short. In doing so, he creates a potentially bigger problem than the first philosophy created. He delegates a particular task to another responsible person. Then, after he gives the individual the responsibility to accomplish the job, the leader continues looking over the person's shoulder. He closely monitors and investigates every move the worker makes. As soon as a move is made which would be different from his own, the leader "calls the worker on the carpet." Actions and rationale are second-guessed and interrogated. This type of managing is demeaning and undermining to subordinates. it sets them up for embarrassment and humiliation. This style will also cause individuals to become frustrated to the point of resignation, feeling as if they are still unnecessary.

The third philosophy is perhaps the worst of all. Not being sure of what managing approach is being attempted will cause utter chaos and confusion. This is the biggest contributor to frustrations, and resignations. it leaves people in the dark. There is no clear vision set forth. There is no clear direction to follow. People are wanting to respond to the leadership, but there is nothing to which they can respond. Many times leaders create this feeling when they attempt to go from the number one style to the number four style. In the process, they fail in making a smooth transition. They become entangled at number two and then bounce back and forth between number one and number four. The result is number three. People throw up their hands in complete and utter frustration.

The fourth philosophy is most effective, most efficient, and most biblical. This style will communicate clearly the direction the leadership has determined to go. Leaders utilizing this approach will give a clear vision for the subordinates to follow. it will serve to stimulate and motivate the entire work force in capturing this same vision. The particulars are then delegated out. This type of leadership capitalizes on the God-given talents and abilities of those whom the congregation has called out "to wait on tables:' This frees the leaders to continue functioning in their overseeing responsibilities. Should an occasion arise in which one of the subordinates loses the vision) then the leaders need to re-evaluate their communication. The key to managing is communication. It cannot be overestimated, over used, or over done. Part of that communication involves the need to incorporate every individual in realizing the vision. As Paul teaches, each individual part of the body must serve its own given function for the overall growth of the body. Everyone wants to feel they have a meaningful task in the accomplishment of a goal or the realization of a dream. Effective management will instill this through clear communication, real delegation, and sensitive oversight of the work. In these ways, a leader creates and maintains proper oversight. This process frees him to dream, to plan, to pray, and to shepherd the flock.

There is always the need for constant and continual maintenance. Even with the sincerest of desires to achieve the level four form of management, there will be times of struggles and challenges. This is not cause to abandon the approach and adopt another. it simply necessitates the fine tuning of the approach through further communication. This must always be a two-way street, from management to subordinate and from subordinate to management. Any break down along the way needs to be recognized, addressed, and resolved.

Being unaware of every single detail of every aspect of the work is not a threat to this type of manager. Instead, he trusts and relies on the ones chosen and "commissioned" to carry out those areas of the work. By broadening the base of responsibility, the congregation will accomplish much more with an incredibly increased amount of efficiency. At the same time, this approach to management does not demean or undermine anyone in their service. it does not embarrass or humiliate anyone should a mistake be made or the vision get out of focus. Instead, it supports, stimulates, and motivates to even greater levels of service and sacrifice.

By the way, what is your managing philosophy? How do you view it? How do others view it?