Principles of Effective Leadership - Lesson 2

Dr. John Johnson
Principles of Effective Leadership
PC506-02
Defining Leadership (Part 1)
Lesson Transcript

Dr. John Johnson [00:00:01] A typical place we start this class is by talking about definitions of leadership. And I've discovered that that's not such an easy thing to do when you read a book on leadership. Almost every book I've read on leadership somewhere, well, it might be on the first page. It might not be to the second or third chapter, but somewhere you'll find this. So here's a definition of leadership, and you find that a lot of them say say it differently. But if I distill it all down, they seem to have three things in common. So we're going to get to that. But if you'll see on your notes there, first of all, when you try to define leadership, you come at it from several angles. So you read books on leadership, and I'm going to come back later and ask you what maybe have been some influential books you've read either on leadership or leaders that you've read about. So part of it is listening to really good voices that maybe you again have read or, you know, personally and hanging out with with some of them. So again, I'll probably come back and ask you to tell me a little bit about some of the skilled leaders you've met in your life, someone that you just you just realized they they really understand leadership. So our aim in this class is to take a number of these voices, as I mentioned, together, see what we learn about leadership. Now in studying it. There are some initial challenges, as I note that when it comes to defining leadership and part of it is, is the fact that leadership just in a broad sense is sort of like beauty. It's how do you define that? Well, it just depends upon a lot of things that impinge upon how you see it from your vantage point. And leadership is a lot that way. There are some who approach leadership more like a science. So there are theories on leadership and you can get into some very technical courses on leadership that way. I mentioned Margaret Wheatley in her book Leadership and the New Science. As a scientist, she looks and she she defines a lot of aspects of leadership through that lens. It's really quite fascinating, really, for everyone to read a real fascinating book on leadership, read Margaret Wheatley especially if you're interested in things like physics, for example, because she'll talk about leadership in terms of energy fields, etc.. So sometimes you can approach leadership almost from a scientific side, but you also see that there is that artistic side and there are a lot of aspects of leadership that are not predictable. Why is this person a leader and this person is not It's not always easy to gauge. There's a certain mystery, if you will, also because leadership is just really highly complex. What I mean by that is let's take follower readiness. Well, that defines a lot of how you will be leaders. My leadership, to a certain degree, looks different in different contexts. Different situations depends upon the readiness of the followers. My leadership as a parent, when my kids were three looks very different in my leadership as a parent with my kids who are in their twenties. Part of it has to do with the readiness of people to follow. Now, that's not to say that my kids at 20 are any more willing to follow than they were three, but part of it has to do with readiness. Part of it has to do with with the different conditions. For example, peacetime leadership looks a lot different than wartime leadership. George Bush is probably a classic example. His leadership pre 911 looked a lot different than his leadership post-9-11, just as our leadership will look different depending upon the condition we find ourselves in. Part of it also has to do with different contexts, and that is there are all kinds of leaders in all these different contexts. How what a leader looks like on a football field at an NFL game is going to look different than a leader in the White House or a leader a Hewlett Packard or especially a leader in the church. Our mistake a lot of times is to say, well, they should all look the same. Well, no, it's like a businessman in my church who says, Well, but John, really, you are a CEO. Well, there are some similarities, but no, I'm not a CEO. I'm a pastor. Pasture has a very different definition of leadership just by the nature of who pasture is, just as a coach has a different definition of leadership. And what happens sometimes is the church forgets that, for example, the church can forget that and try to be try to bring a leadership that is not what is appropriate for the church. Let's see. Part of the complexity also has to do I note here with different cultures, different cultures have different views of leadership. So when I go to the Middle East, as I recently did, their view of leadership, their understanding of leadership is is really quite different than the culture I live in here. Once I taught a course in the intercultural section on leadership and I had I had students from five different cultures. That was really actually a very interesting experience because they all came at leadership from a very different standpoint, which again reinforces this, that, well, what is leadership or trying to define it? Well, it's kind of complex. Also has to do with different styles, personalities and traits. Have you noticed some leaders are really very charismatic and personality driven and right up there in front and we immediately say, well, there's a leader, but then you discover over time some leaders can be very different, some leaders can be very quiet, almost shy to themselves. I think sometimes a classic illustration is in our own seminary here with Randy Roberts, our president. Randy is not doesn't intend to. It's just not his style. It's not who he is to come into a room and fill the room with this personality. Randy actually had the opportunity to be with a whole bunch of people on some occasion or be in his study. Reading a book would probably choose that any day. I still a leader. He's an effective leader, but he's got a whole different temperament, personality. So you can't say, Well, here's what a leader is, a leader, someone who's really outgoing, energetic, ready to take on the world. Maybe. But some leaders aren't like that at all. Some are impulsive, some are very methodical, some are, you know, ostentatious. They come in. They've always got the latest clothes. They are doing something looking outrageous and others maybe wear the same same clothes. They've seemed like they worn forever. They just there's nothing they don't put on airs. There's nothing they're trying to do to impress someone ruthless. Some are vain. Some are modest. So who is the leader? What is leadership? Again, it's kind of hard to define and also has to do with different times. What is a leader today versus what a leader was? Well, when I grew up in the fifties, we had, as I mentioned earlier, sort of the great man theory of leadership. This what a leader is a leader is sort of the Lone Ranger. So as a kid, I know this is going to sound ancient to you, but as a kid, I grew up with the Lone Ranger. Sky King, all these programs, and they all had the heroic mythical leader who comes in and saves the day. My generation grew up with Superman, Batman. But these were all leaders who, by their own. But where did that come from? Any guesses? That definition, if you will, of leadership. Think about it. The fifties. Where could that have come out of? Well, you might say logically comes out of the forties. The forties was was World War two going back to World War One. The whole image of the the great mad theory of leadership, the man at the top, the general, General Patton and all, and Admiral Halsey, etc., probably led to a view of leadership in the fifties. Now, what leadership looks like today in this new generation, in the 21st century is very different. The great man theory of leadership is is gone. No one really is attracted to that. So today it's more, as I put it here, consultative, collegial, more egalitarian, almost. So what is a leader? How do you define it? Has to do with the times. And part of it has to do with different expectations. Christ has a different expectation than the world's expectation. People see you as a leader and they're going to have an expectation. Everybody has an expectation of a leader. And again, the challenge is, is that in different contexts, people have different expectations. For example, with Jesus, what did they expect of him? Well, at least initially they wanted sort of the great man theory of leadership, right? They wanted somebody to come in. They were living in a day of Roman domination, Hellenistic culture, Jewish culture. For the most part, they all were impressed with power. So they wanted Jesus to come in as sort of the ancient King David set up his throne. So the disciples are all what they're all jockeying for position, because in their definition of leadership, this is a guy who takes charge. So Christ says, No, actually I've come in to do leadership differently. So here's the base and here's the Tao. And of course, they're paralyzed. And John 13, they don't know what to do with that. They had a whole different expectation. So my summary statement sort of down here is that leadership is not a single thing. It's not an exact science. It's underscored in all the different theories and plethora of books. But okay, we understand that. Are there some basic components that we can go to that list, some things that we see in common? And as I mentioned, I think of it as like. Think of leadership a little bit like this as having three legs to a stool. And all three of these together form maybe a definition of leadership. I think it's a definition of leadership. Everything I've read tells me that leadership has to stand, if you will, on these three legs. And the first one is this a leader is someone people follow. I know that's profound, right as I go. Where do you hear what I learned today in this leadership course? Leaders are people who have followers. I just meditate on that. It's it's it's pretty obvious. But, you know, think about it this way, too. If you see yourself as a leader and a lot of people see themselves as a leader, they want to see themselves as the leader. Therefore, this definition fairly asks the question, Who's following you? If you see yourself as a leader, then then there should be followers. Now, maybe to a certain extent everybody's a leader because probably almost everybody has some follower, their dog or, you know, at the least, or a parrot in a cage. I don't know. But. When you look at people who've written a lot about leadership, like a Peter Drucker, for example, he would say the only definition of a leader is someone who has followers, which is really quite a profound statement from someone who's written tons of books on leadership. So he, in a sense, says, if you distill it all down to this one core, think, here's what leadership is. A leader is someone who has followers. It has nothing to do with core values. Or do you have followers? Hitler had a huge amount of followers. Drucker would say he's a leader. This is what leaders do. They impact people to follow them. And we look in scripture and we see, well, that seems to make sense. Moses was he a leader according to this definition? Yes, he had followers. Now, sometimes he had pushed back like of leaders do. Joshua With a leader? Yeah, because he had followers. They followed him all the way through the Promised Land. David obviously had followers. People who were even willing to leave the comforts and securities to go out into the wilderness to stay with him. Jesus obviously had followers. Paul had followers. So were these leaders. By this definition, of course they were leaders. They had followers. So some implications. It means this If this is true, then one of the things leaders do who are really good leaders is they manage this relationship. They manage the dynamics of their relationship with followers. They focus upon what attracts followers and they think about the things that followers gravitate to, like somebody who's skillful, somebody who's authentic, somebody who's real, somebody who is skillful. And so when you go back historically, you look at people like Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a great political leader. He was a leader. Why was Franklin Roosevelt a great leader? In part because he had great followership. Now, why did he have a great followership? You know, Franklin Roosevelt during World War Two was the great leader of our nation during that time, Democratic president. But they say when you go back to read about Franklin Roosevelt, what made him a great leader is back to what I said a couple of moments ago. He managed his relationship with his followers. Well, how did he manage his relationship? He had these fireside chats. He gave his followers the dignity of information. He was really skillful at that. Some politicians are really good at that. Some are not. You could say one of the failures of let me just say right from when I speak about politics, I'm not trying to make a statement here of any political persuasion of my own, but my observation of someone like a George Bush is one of his failures of leadership is he didn't manage his relationship with his constituency. He didn't really seem to ever get it what his followers needed. They needed somebody just to sit down and say, let me tell you what I'm thinking. Let me try to explain why I've made the decision. As hard as it is, I want you to know I want you to understand that. And I've heard from some of you and let me explain to some of those concerns why I've done what I've done. I think all of us, frankly, would love a politician who would do that. Right. That, in other words, that takes me serious. The other side of that is someone who let's say I'll use Bush again as an example, because he's so recent at times would say, well, you just have to trust us. We know what we're doing. Dick Cheney's, for example, often, and that's why so many were turned off. It was a certain arrogance at times that said, we know what we're doing, so just shut up and follow. People can do that and pastors can do that. Corporate presidents can do that. You know, one day you wake up and you realize you don't have followers. So the first thing about a leader we can see from a lot of definitions is that leaders have followers. Alexander the Great was a leader. Why? How could this guy start in Macedonia, go down and Greece over to the Middle East, up to Persia and have men follow him all the way to Afghanistan, get almost to the edge of India where finally his soldiers go, We can't go any further. We have followed you. We have defeated all of these kingdoms. How did this guy do that? And we'll talk a little bit about that. If you're looking for someone to talk to us about that was a leader, ask yourself this question. Did he did she have followers? Okay, Second one I put in here. Second definition second legged stool is someone who has influence. Well, that makes a lot of sense. But when you read a lot of books on leadership, one of the things that a lot of books say about leaders is this Here a leader is defined as a person who has influence. That is somebody who impacts somebody who comes in and changes things in a way that causes people to want to follow. To go back to Margaret Wheatley, the scientist, a leader, someone who sort of comes in and changes the field, if you will, and they change the. I think the Latin of influence is in flow. They change the flow. Let me put it this way. They produce an effect. So who's a leader? A leader? Someone who comes in and when they've walked out, things have changed. That they made an influence. They came and they left. And they. They made an impact. They. They left things differently. John Maxwell, who's written tons on leadership, he puts it this way After much research and one of his books, he gives 50 definitions. He concludes with this leadership is influence. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. In his 21 laws, he says, if you don't have influence, you'll never be able to lead others. So all of us have some influence, hopefully. But what these would say is. But nonetheless, there's a prime influencer. Whoever is the prime influencer is the leader. If we all gather here, we're trying to figure out our solution of problem. We're lost. We don't know what to do. We're all listening to one another having some influence. Whoever is the prime influencer. Makes sense, right? That person begins to emerge as the leader. I list a lot of people who concur with that definition and look at illustrations again. You know, Billy Graham has been revered. He's almost dead now. But, you know, he's been revered for many, many years as a leader. Why? You could really distill it down to this. He has influence. Even Obama now, I noticed in the news here only, what, two or three weeks ago went to pay a visit to Billy Graham in his home. Why? He has influence. He influences. He impacts. I always remember I noted here in right after 911 and our nation was really going through all the pain of that attack. And I remember it was Friday night. I was watching there was a powerful service in the Washington Cathedral. George Bush spoke here. It was kind of that moment when all the different political polarities and all just kind of everything just kind of equaled everybody was sort of together. But it's like, okay, we need a voice. We need someone to speak to us, somebody to set a tone, help us, guide us through that. Who was that person? It was Billy Graham. It was Billy Graham got up and he spoke. And he was the voice for the moment. He was the leader. Why was he the leader? Because he. He had more influence than anyone else in that room at that moment. And why did he have influence where you you'd say? We would say he influenced because there was something of the anointing, the hand of God on him. You know, when you look in Scripture, when you see the hand of God, the anointing on people, there's what? Since floods. The third component is a leader, someone who mobilizes towards a common goal. So if you take the first to somebody who has followers, someone who has influence, but something's missing if we don't have this third piece. Almost everyone I've read that is a measurable leader has always taken people somewhere. Leaders and someone who just comes in and talks about the status quo and makes everybody feel good. That's not only a leader, someone almost every leader is destination. Have you noticed that? Here's the thing you know about a leader you discern in a leader, a leader always is going somewhere. There is a destination. There is a vision. Leaders tend to be typically visionary because they're always thinking directional. They always are thinking about a common goal, which they're for getting in place. Followers and influence. Warren Bennis puts it this way. Warren Bennis, who has written a lot on leadership, he probably was the most impacting voice for me when I first started to think about leadership. Becoming a leader was his book. And Ashley, I don't think it's an overstatement to say one in business. When he wrote the book Becoming a Leader, he almost set in motion a lot of people thinking about leadership, writing in leadership. It happened in my life. It was sort of confirmed once at a leadership summit, watching Bill Hybels interview Warren Bennis and Heibel said, I didn't think about leadership really as deeply until I read your book, Becoming a Leader. It's worth getting. But Warren Bennis puts it this way stripped to its essentials. Leadership involves just three things a leader, followers and a common goal. And you are leading them towards. Think of it this way a goal that mobilizes people to do greater things. Here's what a leader does. A leader walks into a room and says, Here's where we are. But you know what? We must never settle for where we are because that's where we need to go. And we're not there yet. A failure of leadership is to begin to drift into status quo, circle the wagons, to use language like, well, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Right. People who use that phrase and I've come around, people like that are non leaders. They choose to live in the present because here's what is fair to say to them. Well, it may not be broke, but it will be. So if you're not leading us out into the future, will one day be in a broke situation? Great leaders don't live in the present. I mean, they're mindful of the present, but they're constantly thinking out into the future. They're forward thinkers and they look for a way to get extraordinary things accomplished. Again, I give a definition here by Barna. Leadership is the process of motivating, mobilizing, resourcing and directing people to passionately and strategically pursue a vision. This is what leaders do. They unite people around a common goal. As McManus puts it, they catalyze movement. Now think in Scripture. A great example of that is Nehemiah Nehemiah catalyzed movement, didn't he? He didn't say, Well, let's just settle for things as they are. He looked and he wept and he said, This can't be. And he gave people a vision of what could be, and he catalyzed movement towards it. Nehemiah It's an illustration. I give Napoleon. One of the reasons Napoleon was a great leader is that he could mobilize armies. He was always getting them to think directionally, and he was also smart. He used terms like fight toward the supplies. That's directional. And when armies had been out there fighting for a long time, that was intensely motivating. Okay. So then the first part here, by giving a broad overview. So now you're part comes in. I've done a lot of talking here, so let's go back and point me to places in the notes or I might here. Let's drill down a little bit. Let's talk about these.

Speaker 2 [00:26:57] I am a Christian.

Dr. John Johnson [00:26:58] Yeah.

Speaker 2 [00:26:59] I am a different person in different settings. I am a different person in the school. Uh huh. Yeah. I'm extremely creative in the school. When I get in a church setting, I want to be one person. Mm hmm. Why is that?

Dr. John Johnson [00:27:17] Well, again, I think because the context of each demand a different kind of leadership. That's why when we talked at the beginning, leadership, by a definition, is complex. It's hard to define because, as an example, the context demands a different kind of leader. It's like, let's say, a pastor who or doesn't have to be pastor. But if you ever listen to a leader and you feel like you've been talked to, it's from a parent, right? And you're thinking, now, look, that kind of leadership is important and good and contextually probably is very helpful in the home. But don't don't bring it over here. I only need one parent. So what happens is you're exactly right, Marsha. Part of the challenge of leadership is to understand the context you're in and the leadership that's needed there and make sure we're not taking what we just did in this context, like, say, the home with our kids, let's say, and bring it over here as we're talking to our staff. Now, Jim, I told you a thousand times, I don't want you doing it this way. Maybe you've done that with Jimmy at home, but not with Jim on your staff. And that's where leaders can really mess up, right? Or a church chairman who's a CEO over here at Intel who chooses to become a CEO on the church board and really screw things up. I had a church chairman in the Netherlands who couldn't separate his leadership in the context of his work from his leadership on the board, and it created a certain amount of havoc. He led us like a board chairman of a corporation. There are similarities, but there are differences. I don't know much if I'm answering the question, but that's part of the complexity and and part of the great wisdom of good leaders is to to know how to shift and what leadership's required in this context. Just like, again, the readiness of people, we can make the mistake of treating people. Let's use an illustration. Let's say if it was the Vietnam War when people were drafted, those days are no are a long time ago. When I was in college, my classmates a number were drafted. I didn't get drafted, but a number of were drafted when they were drafted. They were unwilling and they were unable their first day in the army. They didn't want to be there. I didn't have a clue what to do, so it demanded a kind of leadership. What kind of leadership would you imagine that would need to be?

Speaker 3 [00:30:17] Very direct and.

Dr. John Johnson [00:30:18] Very direct or very authoritarian. You will do this. You will be here. Now, get off this bus. You've already wasted 10 seconds of my time. You know, that's very directive, very sauteed, because you're dealing with unwilling and unable. They don't know where to go, what to do. Now, you wouldn't use that style of leadership for people who are able and willing people who are able and willing to man a whole different kind of leadership. Adam, get your tail in here right now. What? Adam would be offended by that. But that's where you. You don't learn how to make shifts with either follower readiness or with back to Marcia's saying, shifting from one context to another. Good. Yeah, it's coming.

Speaker 3 [00:31:17] So these three components of leadership, they seem to be duty oriented. So is it fair to say that leadership is a situational aspect rather than a characteristic that a person carries over time? Mm hmm. Because even they're a pastor and that's their duty. Yeah. But is it possible to be a leader as a person, as an aspect of being rather than.

Dr. John Johnson [00:31:43] Yeah, that's a really good question. You know, the first thought that comes to mind is and we'll we'll look at this. A leader is a leader in part by giftedness. So I suppose, to use an analogy, if mercy is a gift, which it is in my only merciful, if I'm in a hospital room visiting somebody who's hurting or am I merciful by my nature, meaning that it's just who I am. How would you answer that?

Speaker 3 [00:32:15] I would say it's hard to define that without actions, because by saying I'm merciful but no. And it bleeds out into everyone.

Dr. John Johnson [00:32:24] Yeah.

Speaker 3 [00:32:24] That's helping, you know?

Dr. John Johnson [00:32:28] Right. But when you end up saying that it's it's more driven not by what you do, but just who you are. And if that's true, then I think that's true of a leader. A leader isn't just defined by what he or she does leaders. I think you could just say defined by the fact it's who the person is, is sometimes you use you hear the phrase that this person carries a certain gravitas and then they just walk in a room and maybe they haven't done anything. With some leaders, you can almost sense they're a leader, even if they've not done anything. It's just who they are. I mean, have you ever met a leader like that?

Speaker 2 [00:33:09] Marsha I used to work in health care, and I took a part time job at a Christian bookstore. This pastor came in and looked at my nametag, said, you know, would you be interested in serving as a music director? And in church, it was just maybe if I can remember the organization. And so they needed a music minister, and I had a background in music. And so their music minister had a very flamboyant style of worship. And I guess they ended up hiring him because he wanted to do it all. So and I came on board. They didn't pay me for six months and I designed team leadership. I had everyone I found that I was responding to the need and I didn't want to be up in front of people. I was behind the piano playing. I didn't know what I was doing and to reach out after six months I was done and they hired a man who didn't have any of the music background I had. But he could stand up and lead worship, you know. And I thought that was really interesting that they wanted to hire someone who had, you know, it was just a different philosophy, whereas I had more of a team leadership. I think they wanted someone who could do it all and stand up and leave. But does that make sense?

Dr. John Johnson [00:34:35] Yeah. Let me see if I can pull together. What you're saying here are tendencies. Sometimes with the leader is every leader's going to have a certain strength and gift and how they do things. So you've got more the flamboyant, great man theory, you know, the one the Lone Ranger over here that people react to by saying, you know, we really need someone here. And then so you come in more team oriented, not so much out there in front, but then they end up somewhere a little bit over here. Yeah. Which oftentimes happens probably in any leadership context, but it often happens in a church is that we'll say when somebody when we're making a transition to another leader will tend to say this person wasn't so relational. So we really need to get a relational person because we've not had that component. We tend to always kind of move to our next leadership to be somebody that that wasn't, which maybe it's okay, but sometimes the problem is in doing that, then no leader can be everything. So my end up going right down the road of what the leader before was moving to correct from this. And so you find yourself right back where you were. Am I making sense? And is that a little bit of what you're talking about? Yeah.

Speaker 2 [00:36:05] That there might be different styles of leadership and maybe some churches. It might be a gender thing.

Dr. John Johnson [00:36:11] It might be, again, like we said, in the complexity of defining leadership, different times require different kinds of leaders. When I read about present generation and what they look foreign leaders, it's a little different than what, for example, there's I had come across this article in the Harvard Business Review entitled The Leaders We Need Now. It just was written here about a month ago. What it talked about is a new generation of leaders that are needed that are different than the leaders we used to have. Obviously, I found that really interesting to see. So what what is an emerging generation today saying they need in leaders with the writer to still sit down as to five things and I won't give you all of them, but I'll give you a one here is increased collaborative capacity is the first thing Networks, in most cases based on strong trusting relationships, are essential. Generation X years have a strong attachment to their personal contexts and relationships. That's not quite what I want to get to. Probably the generation right before your generation. Has been less about loyalty and leadership. My dad's generation, let's say, when my dad. I remember as a kid going to company picnics, everybody. It was family gathering. And then that all shifted to more and more companies downsizing. Looking at the bottom line, people are expendable to merchants. More and more of unions. Unions to protect what they are having, which then created this barrier between unions and management. You all with me know what I'm talking about too, today, where we see it in sports. Somebody can be with a team for years, but we'll go to the highest bidder or we'll be released when they no longer serve their function. So in other words, a generation grows up saying and then maybe has grown up more and more in broken homes than maybe a previous generation. In other words, growing out of a sense that there's not a lot of loyalty, there's not a lot of security. Everybody's looking for the bottom line. People viewed as expendable. So what's emerged is a desire for the kind of leadership that values one another. So it's a reaction to what leadership looks like today from what leadership used to look like. It's very different. Again, that's all part of the complexity. Part of it is what our times are saying. If you're interested in this article, be happy to make a copy of it. But coming from Harvard Business Review, I thought it was really interesting. One of them is appreciating diversity just because we're a much more multi-ethnic, multicultural society today than we used to be. We're not so monocultural. So one of the things that people value in leadership is a leader who values diversity. I mean, you go back to, let's say, Willow Creek and Saddleback when they emerge, Saddleback all built their whole church around. You remember this or maybe you don't. Saddleback, Sam said, ring a bell. You're familiar with Rick Warren. Saddleback Church. So they started with they figured out what's the person they're going to go after. And they called them Saddleback Sam. They even had a picture of him showing his professional life size style of music. He values these kind of things. So they decided they're going to do everything to build their whole church around attracting Saddleback, Sam. That to a certain extent, Hybels did it at Willow Creek. He and one of his first books out was on Church Terry and Mary. You ever remember that book or see that you know what that book was about? It was about the same thing Rick Warren did. So we're going to reach unchurched, Henry. We're going to reach on Mary. Here's what they look like. So they drew up a composite in the Barrington area. I remember once hearing Rick Warren say this, for example, going back to Saddleback. But you don't turn on a radio station and move from classical to country to hard rock. So what we're doing is finding out what it is if people are saying, you know, we we listen to not that this is it, we listen to country, okay, then we're going to do everything to build our music and everything around that one thing. So it won't be a church for everybody is going to be a church for this slice. But this slice makes up predominantly this culture. So we're going to go after that. And they were very successful. Well, we'd say today that is a model of leadership that is not so much true today because we value much more multicultural ministry. And even if you read and look at what Hybels is saying today, Hybels would say, you know, they've had to make a huge shift. So times change. Leadership changes. What people need a leader to be today is different than what they needed a leader to be before. Okay. Other questions. Thoughts on defining leadership. In fact, let's do this here before we get to your question here, because we're really it's time for a break here. So let's take a ten minute break and then let's come back and talk a little bit more about definitions before we move to our next thing.

Speaker 4 [00:41:58] Thank you for listening to this lecture. Brought to you by biblical training, dawg. Feel free to make copies of this lecture to give to others, but please do not charge for these copies or alter the content in any way without permission. We invite you to visit our website at W WW dot Biblical training dawg. There you will find the finest in evangelical teaching for use in the home and the church. And it is absolutely free. Our curriculum includes classes for new believers, lay education classes, and seminary level classes taught by some of the finest seminary teachers drawn from a wide range of evangelical traditions. Our mailing address is Post Office Box 28428. Spokane, Washington 99228 USA.