Time to Get Serious About Leadership in the Church

Leadership development is a multi-billion-dollar industry. In the United States alone over $13B is invested in various programs every year. These figures are exclusive to the business world and do not include similar investments made in academia, government or non-profit sectors.

The numbers are staggering and ironic, for two reasons. First, the average fortune 500 company has a life cycle of no more than 40 years. Billions of dollars invested with little chance of long-term impact. Second, most of the focus is targeted to the development of “emerging leaders.” Certainly, young leaders have the highest potential to make a lasting impact, but they are also the most targeted by headhunters. Long before the organization sees a return on their investment, the emerging leader takes off for another company.

Why, then, do organizations continue to make huge financial investments with no guaranteed return? Because leadership matters. The data is clear, organizations that are well led significantly outperform organizations that are poorly led. What does high-performance mean? High performing organizations become more and more effective at accomplishing their mission.

The data is clear, organizations that are well led significantly outperform organizations that are poorly led. High performing organizations accomplish their mission. Is this a wake up call for the Church? Share on X

This should be a wake-up call for the Church. There are three reasons why we, the Church, should be radically committed to leadership development.

Reason #1 – We Have THE Mission Critical

The Church has the most important mission in the world – to make disciples of all nations. Nothing matters more than this and never will. Ours is the one and only mission critical.

Repeating what was written above, well-led organizations are better at accomplishing their mission then poorly-led organizations. Any organization, therefore, claiming to have an important mission should be the most committed to leadership development.

Think of it this way – the amount of resources allocated to leadership development indicates how important we think our mission really is.

Any organization claiming to have an important mission should be the most committed to leadership development. Share on X

The Church should be radically committed to developing leaders and fostering a leadership pipeline for the sake of advancing our mission – the one and only mission critical.

Reason #2 – Status Quo is No Longer Working

Leaders are fanatical about making forward progress. Nothing is more discouraging to the heart of a leader than being stuck in a culture or system with no commitment for improvement and no appetite for change.

If change weren’t necessary, leadership wouldn’t be necessary. Management would do just fine. The culture has shifted so significantly, it’s impossible to ignore the need to change our methodology.

If change weren’t necessary, leadership wouldn't be necessary. Management would do just fine. The culture has shifted so significantly, it’s impossible to ignore the need to change our methodology. Share on X

The Church is no longer regarded as a trusted lighthouse for society. In fact, growing numbers of people think that the farther society flees from Christianity and the influence of the Church, the better off we will be. I appreciate how Fr James Mallon puts it, “Most priests have been trained for ministry in Jerusalem, but we are living in Babylon.”

Now, more than ever, we need leaders who possess a two-sided paradigm to vision. One, visionary leaders communicate a picture of a preferred future that inspires hope. Two, they confront reality with brutal, analytical honesty to expose the status quo in all its ugliness. Visionary leaders never settle for a superficial analysis or nostalgic view of the situation. They define the lay of the land for what it is, not for what they want it to be or what it once was.

The Church needs leaders who possess a two-sided paradigm to vision. One, communicating a picture of a preferred future. Two, confronting reality with brutal, analytical honesty to expose the status quo in all its deficiency. Share on X

Reason #3 – A Disengaged Majority

The Gallup Group recently completed a study that was the largest research initiative ever done to measure employee engagement. It confirmed what most managers feared – disengagement is on the rise. Exactly 69% of employees are disengaged at work.

Think of the average workplace as a row boat with 10 people on board: 3 are engaged and paddling in the right direction; 5 are coasting, not paddling at all, and; the final 2 are actively rowing in the wrong direction and splashing the other rowers to discourage them and cause disruption. That is what 69% employee disengagement looks like … and it’s the norm nowadays.

The numbers are staggering. In the United States alone, an estimated $450M/year is wasted in lost productivity. What is the cause of such high levels of disengagement? According to Gallup, the number one contributing factor is poor leadership from the immediate supervisor. Disengagement is caused and perpetuated by poor leadership.

What about the Church? What is the level of engagement and disengagement in the mission? How many of our parishioners are personally and enthusiastically engaged with the evangelizing mission of the Church? I might suggest that the engagement crisis in the workplace is eclipsed by the engagement crisis in the mission of the Church. I would also suggest the same root cause, a crisis in leadership.

Seminary is the Beginning Not the End of Formation

My wife and I started to learn about raising children during our marriage preparation course, but we retained little. There was no felt-need at the time, no situation to which we could apply what we were learning. We assumed, as most engaged couples do, that when we become parents, we shall learn how to parent. Once the kids started arriving and soon outnumbering us, we were motivated to learn.

Should seminarians learn about leadership? Sure, that is a place to start learning, but this is the beginning, not the end of leadership development.

Perhaps a better approach would be to launch an intensive leadership training program, once a new priest is named a pastor. No reason why newly appointed Pastors can’t begin a two-year intensive formation program in leadership to accompany them for the first two full liturgical cycles. No reason why they can’t approach this in a co-hort style with other new pastors taking part from the Diocese or a shared co-hort from multiple dioceses.

The possibilities are endless and the potential for positive benefit is significant enough to give it a try. Who’s first?