Leadership and the Ziklag factor – 3

Sterling leadership is known by its ability to place relationship above rules, function above form and effectiveness above efficiency. The leader’s primary assignment is to provide leadership for people who drive the process leading to the attainment of a vision. Nobody is inspired by a leader who insists on punishing every infraction without consideration for the feelings of his followers. Such leaders lead by fear rather than by influence. People obey them only because they have to, not because they really want to! In a crisis involving the collective, followers want to see leadership demonstrated. They want a role model that inspires, not a tyrant that shoves their fallibility down their throats! When a leader gives his followers room to make mistakes and correct them without losing face or even position (unless when such errors have a potentially damaging effect on the process leading to the attainment of the overall objective), their loyalty level shoots to the stratosphere!

Many years ago in my early years of pastoring, something happened in our church that was enough to discourage anyone in leadership. Some people activated the rumour mill around some amounts of money said to have been collected in the church but not used for the purpose for which they were intended. Unfortunately, all the confidential whispers pointed to me as the culprit. Knowing beyond any doubt, reasonable or unreasonable, that I was innocent, my initial natural reaction was that of rage especially when I discovered that the whispers originated from some people I entrusted with leadership and who should not only have known better but should also have been expected to get my back. I was outside Nigeria when I got wind of the rumours through a call from a Pastor friend who was not even part of our ministry. On my return to the country, I confirmed it. By that time, the church was already practically split into camps of those who believed in me enough to vouch for my integrity and those who perfidiously maintained that my profession of integrity was only a facade for covering up more heinous infractions against the collective.

At that point in my life, I might as well have taken a trip to hell and back. It was a traumatic experience. I did not feel like preaching another sermon for the rest of my life. In the privacy of my room, I wept like a baby. Food tasted like gravel in my mouth. I felt a sense of betrayal like Julius Caesar must have felt seeing Brutus give him the first stab! Was it not in the presence of these same people that my family sold our only car at that time, a Mercedes Benz, and gave the entire proceeds as our contribution to the cost of the land that we were raising money to buy? Many of the members were in church on the day that the buyer came to collect the car and had seen my daughter who was six at that time cry her heart out at the ‘loss’ of our only car, meaning that we would have to find an alternative means for her and her brother to get to and fro school! What had I not done to demonstrate before everybody that I lived my life in the open? One of my most made statements was that I would rather not have a cupboard so that the temptation of acquiring a skeleton would not arise.

However, what many members of the church did not know was that even though we were yet to be registered at that time, I never personally handled money collected for any project. As soon as money was raised for any project, I promptly put someone in charge of it and all contributions were warehoused with him or her until the project was completed!

After pouring out my heart to God, I received encouragement like David and went to church on Sunday determined to be a blessing like never before. Before preaching, I addressed the issues without pointing fingers at anyone. I called on the church member, a lawyer, who was handling all the transactions at that time and to whom all contributions were paid to update the congregation. He gave a bit-by-bit account of how money had been spent and pointedly told everyone present that beyond giving necessary approvals for disbursement, money did not pass through me in any form! I did the same for other projects for which money had been contributed and the people in charge all said the same thing. You could have heard a pin drop!

I was tempted to make scapegoats of one or two people who I knew originated the whispers, but I had to caution myself. Instead, I thanked those who had expressed ‘concerns’ about our collective interests and I asked if all their concerns had been appropriately addressed. The church affirmed in unison. Then I went ahead to preach an awesome sermon that was a blessing to all! After all, truth needs no defence!

From that time on, people so willingly gave that in record time, we were able to offset the cost of the land.

From the reaction of the people to my resolution of the issue, I learnt a leadership lesson that is clearly discernible in the experience of David at Ziklag. Not every expression of dissent in the followership is an indication of rebellion. More often than not, the expression of dissent is a betrayal of an underlying concern that needs to be addressed in order to reinforce the confidence of followers in the leader. In such instances, the real cry to leadership is that the issues need to be attended to rather than a desire to sabotage leadership. Imposing sanctions, pointing fingers or making scapegoats of anyone at such times would only aggravate the situation, lead to open rebellion and other counterproductive outcomes. At Ziklag, collective survival was at stake. For that reason, everything that borders on individual interests would have to take the backstage, whether in respect of a leader who feels aggrieved or the followers who started the grief cycle.

Leaders should be grateful when they have people on their team who can see things differently even if not for the most altruistic of reasons. Dissent must never be seen to be synonymous with disloyalty. Those who disagree with you in your team help you to see alternative perspectives that sycophants around you would never let you see. Secure leaders tolerate and even encourage dissent. Insecure leaders interpret it as disloyalty and an affront to their authority. When that happens, they forfeit the opportunity of raising strong leaders.

Because David internalized the expression of his grief and externally provided leadership, the same people who had felt like stoning him followed him to battle to recover what had been lost. None of the soldiers rebelled against or deserted him. Even the ones that were too discouraged or weak to go after the enemy, stayed behind to watch over what was left!… continued.

Remember, the sky is not your limit, God is!