Introduction: A Philosophy of Administration and Leadership
Every administrator is a leader. Regardless of the organization or its nature, from casual to complex, a leader projects his/her personal influence into the functions and relationships of the system. Eventually the system becomes an extended reflection of the administrator's own personality, character, and competence. The leader's values determine every choice, every decision he makes. In time, those personal values permeate, to a greater or lesser degree, the entire fabric of the organization.
Administration is the art of applying organizational principles and policies to solve problems and accomplish the purposes for which the organization exists. Art, however, is not an exact science. Every artist interjects into his artistry some element of himself, making the product uniquely his own. The same is true for administration and leadership. Every administrator forms the organization he leads into something of his own image. The stamp of personal identity is an inevitable and inescapable element of leadership. The primary administrative function for a leader, therefore, is to determine and apply those personal values that contribute most effectively to reaching organizational goals.
The foregoing assumes two important elements. First, that the goals of the organization are known and well defined, and second, that the leader/administrator knows his own values. If either of these is unclear, the result will be confusion and uncertainty throughout the organization. The inevitable products of this insecurity are frustration, discouragement and low morale in the entire system.
The Nature and Use of Power in Administration
Normally, the power of administration is the power of authority. Mr. So-and-so has the power to make such-and-such a decision because he has the authority, the right, to do so. It is that authoritative power that we are speaking of in this context.
Authority can be granted in a system either by virtue of position or by personal deferment. The question, "Who's in control here?" may be answered primarily on the basis of organizational structure, but that authority can not and will not be confirmed unless the rest of the people in the system experience significant respect for the person occupying the position of leadership.
The administrator's first job, then, is to gain the respect of those whom he leads, not only for the sake of his own leadership tenure and success, but more fundamentally, for the internal health and external success of the entire organization. Without this respect and cooperation, an administrator will be doomed to a plague of criticism, doubt, infighting, and insubordination. On the other hand, with the respect and appropriate honor of the organization for himself and for his position, the wise administrator can lead his team to accomplish the impossible.
Having said this, we must also note that respect cannot be just "commanded," especially in a volunteer organization such as a church. Metaphors notwithstanding, the church is not the military, neither is it an employer with economic leverage over its members. No one has to do anything! Therefore, respect (and consequently the power that goes with it) must be earned and maintained on the basis of personal relationships. Church members, for instance, must believe in the vision, integrity, and leadership of their pastor before they will respect his judgment. If he betrays their trust, they will lose their respect for him, and his power as an administrator will erode proportionately.
An administrator's power can only legitimately be used to promote or reach toward the organization's goals. A pastor, for instance, may not siphon church funds off to support his personal business. He may not open the church facilities for meetings not authorized by the church, or which may be counter-productive to the church's purposes. Power granted to a leader is limited, conditional power. Violation of this principle will inevitably result in the loss of respect and a consequential loss of power (authority) for the leader.
Conflict as a Test of Values
The test comes when two or more personal values collide with each other. When two or more principles, held to be inviolable – yet mutually incompatible – must each be applied to a given situation, what does the administrator do? Where does he find solutions? How does the leader lead?
The answer lies in the leader's vision of the bigger picture, and his ability to convey his insight to the rest of the organization. The leader must "go outside the nine dots" to reach the goals of the group, and he must take the group with him. He must paint the picture so vividly that his followers can smell the flowers and feel the breeze. In other words, the administrative function of a leader, when faced with organizational or personal conflict is to identify and effectively communicate a vision of the possible in the context of the impossible. It is to find and share the solution by opening up new and exciting possibilities of what can be done.
These solutions must be within the purposes and goals of the organization. But perhaps the very purposes and goals themselves need to be examined to see if they are accurately understood. The question must be asked, "What is it that we're about here?" It may be discovered that there is a bigger understanding of this organization than we have known heretofore. For instance, maybe God has more in mind than just the conversion of the Jewish world to Christianity. Maybe he wants to include the Gentiles as well. Maybe he wants his message of salvation to go to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. Maybe he wants to save the whole world!
It is possible, of course, that a conflict of ideas or values may truly be beyond harmonious co-existence, regardless of how big the picture is. If that becomes evident, the only solution is to discard one of the values entirely or modify one or both until they fit together. The unfortunate part of such a value conflict is that often each position is tenaciously held by some person, and the conflict is interpreted as being between persons rather than between the values and ideas. When an idea must be sacrificed, the organization loses the person as well, often with an aftermath of bitterness.
