As leaders, our decisions determine the character of our organizations. We cannot afford to make exceptions for ourselves. If the president takes company material for personal use, that excuses others. In fact, a little dishonesty at the top encourages much more at the bottom. Dishonest handling of expenses, for example, is inexcusable. I have seen some leaders overlook or excuse "small dishonesties" as a way to glue the organization to the leader through guilt. They may even call this a "perk" The leader is responsible for keeping options in line with right character. If honesty is the best policy, then it must be the only policy. At Genesco, where I worked as an executive, the president was firm in saying, "If it has to be done, then it can be done right. If it can't be done right, it doesn't have to be done." This pressured us to come up with creative options to accomplish what needed to be done when others took shortcuts. Character decisions must be disciplined decisions. Trying to maintain control does not result in decisions that are made for the health of the organization. It is the natural tendency of leadership to protect its position. Such leadership sets up the organization for personal control, not for leadership development. This may work in corporations, but definitely doesn't in Christian work. Once I was involved in a ministry reorganization that raised the control question: "Is this work his or His?" Did it belong to the leader or to God? I have heard leaders say, "God called me to lead this organization," and I wanted to ask, "For what purpose? That you might have a lifetime job, or that the mission of the organization might be best accomplished?" Generally a leader who is control-driven is serving self more than God. This desire for control is a major character issue. There are times in emergencies when unified control is necessary for survival, similar to giving the president "wartime powers," but only in emergencies, not as a way of leadership. Dictators do not develop strong leaders for succession. Once I was asked if I'd be interested in becoming president of a manufacturing corporation that had a long-term dictatorial leader who had recently died. I knew my team approach would not be profitable, for the subordinates had been taught to act on orders, not to think through solutions. I couldn't in good conscience ask people who hadn't taken responsibility for results for years to begin to think for themselves. The corporation needed a younger dictator to keep the company successful. Recently a long-term pastor told me how difficult it is for a new pastor to follow one with a long service history. When the old pastor is even a quasi dictator, it becomes impossible for the first or second new pastor after him to succeed. Usually by the time the third pastor comes along, he is able to change the system to fit his style. Historically, a benevolent dictator with great ability is the most efficient leader for most organizations over the time of his service. Long term, however, he is frequently a detriment to the health of the organization after he leaves. In corporate management I was taught that the perpetuity of the healthy organization is management's first responsibility, and so leadership development at all levels is of prime importance. Successful succession is a leader's responsibility and often a test of his character.
Disciplined Decisions
The power of disciplined decisions for the healthy organization.
By Fred Smith
