Leadership lessons from Libya and Iraq
In early 2003, President George W. Bush invaded Iraq. He was widely criticized for having a “cowboy mentality” and being too quick to act. In 2011, Libyan rebels have begun an attempt to remove Moammar Gadhaffi from office. Even while they asked for help from the West as their numbers were killed, President Barack Obama did not act. He is being widely criticized for “dithering” and being too slow to act.
A Republican President and Democratic President took very different approaches to another country in conflict—and both are being heavily criticized. It seems likely that President Obama thought he was learning from the example of President Bush by moving slowly. The problem is that he didn’t look far enough back in history and study enough examples. The lesson is not that you should move slowly, the lesson is that leaders will be criticized no matter what they do.
If you decide to drop your traditional service, you will be criticized. If you decide not to drop your traditional service, you will be criticized. If you decide to allow video games with some level of violence in your youth center, you will be criticized. If you decide not to do so, you will be criticized.
If you’re a leader, you are going to face criticism regardless. Even if you decide not to do anything, you will have complaints—and then be abandoned by everyone with any energy to help your church achieve its mission. Therefore, attempting to avoid criticism is a waste of time. Prayerfully decide what’s right and then do it.
Confusion, consultation, and consensus
Many of the same people who complained about the length of time President Obama took to enter the engagement in Iraq are now complaining that his actions are an illegal overstepping of the power of the executive branch of the government. Congressmen and senators from both parties are saying that only Congress has the power to declare war, and that the president is using semantics to make it sound like something other than war so he can bypass their authority over the issue. They’re still saying that he hasn’t made clear what his intentions are. Translation: They got their feelings hurt that he acted without consulting them. He stepped on their sense of ownership and power.
The lesson is that leaders must communicate well and involve others. The president would not have been criticized for dithering if he had been using that time to discuss his plans with congressional leaders. When he did act, he would have announced that he had been in discussions with those leaders for a couple of weeks and people would have concluded that he had indeed been acting from the beginning, just behind the scenes.
There are influential people outside your inner circle that feel a sense of ownership and power in your church. If you surprise them with decisions that affect them, they will cause problems. Now don’t misunderstand; I’m not saying that you should seek consensus before making a decision. Leadership by committee is a guarantee of ineffectiveness. However, you should actively consult in advance with—and listen to—the influencers with a stake in your decision.
Even if your ultimate decision is not what they wanted, you’ll 1) have the opportunity to tailor your plans to make them more palatable to the dissenters; 2) have less backlash because the influencers know you included them in the process and perhaps see ways in which you tweaked your plans in ways that make them more acceptable; and 3) know the objections the congregation might have so you can address them in advance when you make your announcement. Clearly communicate to the church what you’re doing and why, and who was involved in discussion.
I’m not sure whether the U.S. President has a more difficult job than every church leader in the world. Sure, the president may declare war and send people to their deaths, but we’re involved in matters affecting people’s eternal souls. Let’s learn what we can from the challenges our presidents face as we try to lead those to whom God has called us.
