By Rick Chromey
Leadership happens when we move people toward desired insights, attitudes, and behaviors. We all lead somebody, but in the church our skill to enact change, instill confidence, and reduce conflict often spells the difference between success or failure, promotion or termination, trust or skepticism.
Naturally, the real question is how will you lead and flex your leadership style?
Tom enjoys the spotlight. His winsome charisma captures his congregation”s heart. He enjoys risks, but Tom”s hasty decisions betray trust and create insecurity. His lack of discipline keeps Tom unfocused and unproductive.
Rob also enjoys risk and change, but with calculation. He”s the man everyone calls to finish the job. Unfortunately, Rob often loses respect with his volunteer leaders and church elders. His brusque and abrupt ways cost him influence and his isolationist habits keep even supporters at a distance.
John is highly respected, cautious, and articulate. His organizational skills and disciplined lifestyle indicate certain success. Nevertheless, John struggles to influence and inspire his team. Many times he would rather fly solo and do the job right than experience failure.
Bob leads from the shadows. His ability to interpret conflict, perceive relational dissonance, and affirm others to succeed is uncanny. His reserved nature creates criticism for Bob, made worse by his difficulty making a decision or a change.
All four of these individuals are competent leaders. Each has unique gifts and strengths for leadership and ministry. And yet, none of these men lasted long. Rob and Tom were both fired. John resigned in frustration, while Bob pastors his third church in five years.
What”s the issue? Some might point to leadership inexperience or the difficult nature of ministry. Others might implicate their educational training or life circumstances.
Yet, the real issues are rooted in their leadership styles.
Some leaders are passive while others are active. One leader quietly supports his team while another charges forward alone. Some leaders are performance-driven while others are more people-sensitive. Some are highly scheduled while others are less organized.
Here”s the real question: Which type of leader are you?
Game Show Host (Active/Emotive)
One type of leader resembles a game show host. Loud and lively. Daring and delightful. Energetic and expressive. “Game show hosts” love applause and magical moments. They possess powerful personalities and winsome ways that draw crowds.
Their dynamic style is sparked by impulsiveness, but “game show hosts” quickly learn emotional energy alone cannot move a leadership team for long. Such people are naturally undisciplined, miss deadlines, are tardy, and/or forget promises. Game show hosts love the initial energy of a project, but lose momentum as problems, issues, and conflict emerge. And while they relish risk and embrace change, their decisions based on hunches usually backfire. Success is determined by applause. Consequently, many such leaders experience frustration, short tenures, and burnout.
Tom is a “game show host” who”s learned strategies to better lead his youth ministry. It was a difficult proposition, but he scrapped his undisciplined habits and focused on time and tasks. Tom recognized his ability to motivate, but promised to listen more and talk less. He budgeted calendar time to personally invest in his leaders. Tom also delegated more tedious tasks (program planning, data entry) to a willing volunteer.
Tom now devotes more time to lesson preparation and vision casting. He meets regularly with individuals to flesh out his dreams and ideas. But don”t be fooled, Tom is still Tom. By midafternoon he”s out the door to spend time with the kids.
He still prefers people time to desk time any day.
Chef (Active/Cognitive)
“Chefs” are ready-made leaders who want to be in charge. They innately recognize the recipe for success. “Chefs” are decisive, determined, and disciplined. They”re easy to follow and know how to simmer creativity within a plan that nearly always succeeds. As visionary leaders, they”re routinely tapped for outside work and known for their ability to stir multiple pots. In fact, “chef” pastors lead most growing and large churches.
The problem for “chefs” is their objectives often become omnipotent. Performance outweighs people. Their efficiency results in isolation. Like a “lone cook” in the kitchen, they focus more on the task than feelings of who”ll get burned by the process. Chefs easily boil the tempers of the disorganized and spontaneous, but it”s hard to argue with their success. Chefs are intuitive, mission-minded leaders. Success for them is getting things done right and on time.
As a “chef,” Rob realized his salty personality could be flavored with more sensitivity. He scheduled occasional meetings with his volunteers, parents, and elders to hear their concerns. He committed to accountability relationships with respected mentors. Rob also learned to use his self-confidence to motivate his team.
The greatest change, however, was when Rob dropped his isolationist philosophy. “No more lone ranger ministry,” he reasoned. Rob worked hard to initiate and grow relationships. He made his office more inviting and spent time after church to listen and learn. Rob”s organizational skills and scheduling allowed him to work smarter, not harder. Now he”s really cooking!
Stage Manager (Passive/Cognitive)
A third leadership style is the “stage manager.” Disciplined to a fault, these leaders work from a script to inspire thoughtful change and possess keen insight as they wisely lead side stage.
“Stage managers” are valuable leaders because they design detailed screenplays. Their aptitude for organization means they relish rules and desire reliability. “No surprises” is their motto; they resist script changes. Let”s do it as we”ve practiced. Decisions are calculated. Success is perfection.
Unfortunately, a stage manager”s deliberate cautiousness causes problems. Stage managers are content to work from tradition and timeliness, which rankles the impulsive types. Some avoid risk altogether, and their analytical leadership threatens, tyrannizes, and tires those who prefer wonder to wit and inspiration to insight.
John is a typical “stage manager.” Micromanagement is his greatest weakness, and he often places heavy rules, criticism, and expectations upon both himself and his staff. John”s perfectionism easily leads him to discouragement when he”s stressed. He”s admittedly not a “people person,” and he struggles to develop relationships.
But John has learned to release his team to be what he can”t. He”s even abandoned the script and developed a sense of humor about his imperfections””which had stolen his joy in ministry. John also committed himself to two relationships in his ministry: to mentor and be mentored.
It”s no wonder John”s getting standing ovations nowadays.
Counselor (Passive/Emotive)
The final leadership style is the quiet influencer or “counselor.” Diplomatic and dependable, “counselors” lead through intimate relationships. Their passivity limits exposure, which means many of these leaders are overlooked. Naturally people-oriented, these leaders exude a coolness no matter how difficult the situation and lead with support and sensitivity. Consequently, they build loyal, close leadership teams.
Unfortunately, “counselors” may crack under conflict. They prefer peace and resolution to dissolution and debate. Emotional pain stings when a counselor seeks to help and heal. Consequently, they”re famously slow decision makers and they avoid risk. “Counselors” desire to please everyone (and hear every opinion), exhibiting an idealism that stalls progress and upsets “game show hosts” and “chefs.” Decisions emerge from consensus and success is cooperation.
Bob is a “counselor” leader who learned to emphasize his relational skills and ability to mediate conflict. A main reason he moved so often was his inability to handle the political games in the congregations he served. Why can”t we all get along? he wondered. Nevertheless, Bob also learned his leadership style empowered hope, especially in smaller congregations needing relational leadership. He allowed his weakness to become his strength.
Bob also combated his indecisiveness by recruiting “chefs” and “stage managers” to his leadership teams. These trusted advisers enabled Bob to make tough and timely choices. He also learned conflict was inevitable but used his calm demeanor, sensitivity, and diplomacy to ensure success.
Everyone Leads with Style
Nevertheless, styles will naturally conflict. “Game show hosts” and “stage managers” tend to collide as one argues from emotion and the other from intellect, one wired to the actors and the other to the script. “Chefs” and “counselors” tend to battle, with “chefs” usually winning the war (as “counselors” prefer to flee than fight).
Consequently, it”s important to recognize and harmonize different styles.
“Game show hosts” and “counselors” need the organizational and analytical skills and decisiveness of “chefs” and “stage managers” (who require, in return, their connection to people and sensitivity to issues). “Stage managers” and “counselors” need to inspire their teams while “chefs” and “game show hosts” need assistance to avoid hasty decisions. Sometimes it”s good to wait.
A great team, staff, or board will feature all four styles working in harmony, allowing each individual to freely explore and express his natural leadership orientation. No one should be left out, behind, or alone.
Now that”s leading with style!
Rick Chromey is a motivational speaker and leadership trainer living in Eagle, Idaho (www.leadingfromtheedge.net).
Hi Rick. Thank you for your insights and sharing these four different leadership styles with us. I am looking forward to reading more articles from you.
I am appreciative of this article, for it gives me an opportunity to check my own leadership and discover that all leaders do not have to be forceful and outgoing. We all have a place in God’s kingdom, and I thank you for helping us to be aware of our usefulness regardless of personality or ability. Thanks, and God bless!
John McCain a “counselor” type? Hmmm, I don’t know about that one. What we need now is a follow-up article that tells us how each of these types can make up for their deficits. It’s one thing to describe the types, quite another to learn how to make each type work.
The real question is what kind of leader is Jesus, and how do I need to change to become more like Him.
There is a rapid litmus test to expose the true vs. fake leader; how does the leader treat widows and orphans? This test immediately disqualifies many supposed leaders. It the supposed leader falis this test, the leadership style is ALL fluff. If this test is passed, the style is irrelevant; God will work.
Luke 22:26 But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. 27 Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.
Galations 2:6 And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.) 7 Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. 8 For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles.
9 In fact, James, Peter,[c] and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews. 10 Their only suggestion was that we keep on helping the poor, which I have always been eager to do.
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is the God of gods and Lord of lords. He is the great God, the mighty and awesome God, who shows no partiality and cannot be bribed. 18 He ensures that orphans and widows receive justice. He shows love to the foreigners living among you and gives them food and clothing.
James 1:26 If you claim to be religious but don”™t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. 27 Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.
A leader who doesn’t care for widows and orphans is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, blowing smoke.
The more I thought about this article, the more confused I felt. I was left with the impression the author was claiming originality of these ideas. They are far from original. Change the names to Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholic, & Phlegmatic and you have Galen’s (AD 131″“200) four temperamental categories. Many others since Galen have used groupings of four different names that still encompass the same basic temperament types. I am really disappointed by the low “standard” the ChristianStandard just adapted.
“‘The Poor Disguise’ Although the writer has retained the essential content of the source, he or she has altered the paper’s appearance slightly by changing key words and phrases.”- http://plagiarism.org/plag_article_types_of_plagiarism.html
Thanks for the comments everyone. Obviously its difficult to say everything that needs to be said within specific word counts (as my friend Dan Schantz understands!). I also recognize there might be some disagreement in placement or designation of certain leaders but the key is how behaviors reflect style. I designated John McCain as a “counselor” or passive/emotive because that’s how he had traditionally behaved in office and in his presidential run. His passivity is without question (who has made more noise since 2008…John McCain or Sarah Palin [an active]?). I do view him as more emotive (and he may not be deeply emotive, mind you) than cognitive, particularly in his pick of Sarah Palin (an unknown political commodity). It seemed more a pick from the heart than the head. Still I could be wrong there.
As for Anne’s comments, I was equally confused and, to a degree, shocked. Am I aware of the four historic personality types (sanguine, choleric, melancholic and phlegmatic)? Absolutely. And while Galen used those words, he wasn’t the first: most scholars view Hippocrates (460-370 BC) as the originator of the four types or as he called them “humors.”
The problem is even if you’re aware of these ancient types, do you remember what they mean? What exactly is a “phlegmatic” personality? Furthermore, my designations are applied to leadership science and praxis. Yes, personality plays a role but I am attempting to be more specific in my designations.
Finally, while no author can claim to be truly “original” in everything (even Solomon said there was nothing new under the sun) my visual designations (game show host, chef, stage manager and counselor) are clearly ALL mine. I did originate these tags as a fresh way to VISUALIZE the four basic styles. BTW, other leadership inventories will list them as OTTERS, LIONS, BEAVERS and DOGS. However, I believe my tags have proven more helpful because they humanize the leadership “animal” and enables leaders to recognize how they tend to operate (on-stage/off-stage, task or people). Frankly, I felt it was equally a “low standard” to be accused of plagiarism or academic theft. My article and thoughts were original from start to finish, Anne.
For those interested, this article is born out of my popular leadership workshop of the same name. I’d love to come to your church, conference, school or organization to share more about how these styles interact and provide solid suggestions (as Dan requested) for how these leaders need to operate.
If you would like to download the notes (which includes suggestions and additional insights), simply follow this link: http://web.mac.com/rchromey/Leading_From_The_Edge!/Lead_With_Style_files/Leading%20With%20Style.handout.pdf
I knew I must read this again. I hope I did not miss the part of servant. As well written and thoughtful as this article is, how do these styles compare to what our Master says about leaders (Matthew 20: 17-19)? Note great followings because of a servant’s heart and a leadership style. Yes, bro. Dan is right about space. Face to face is much better.
Before one can determine style, one must ask, “Am I a leader?” Not everyone can be a leader. The simplest definition of a leader is someone who has people following them. Knowing leadership styles are helpful to understand yourself better as a leader, but if servanthood is left out, such examination is fruitless.