In over 20 years of vocational ministry, I have had the privilege of serving in a variety of roles, such as being the Dean of Ministries in an academic institution, a country director in an international ministry, and as a pastor in a local church. In these roles, I have served under leaders with very different leadership styles and have observed their strengths and weaknesses.  

A leader’s style is characterized by their approach to decision making, their communication with others, and their commitment to a ministry philosophy. I’ve summarized three leadership styles with three key words and then try to describe their strengths and weaknesses. I then propose a strategy to help us all become better leaders.

1. Decisive. Direct. Dogmatic.

This type of leader is very effective in making culture and strategy changes in a short amount of time. They often do this through immediate staff changes, ending existing ministries, and/or adding new ones. They make important decisions quickly and expect the team to follow.  Their communication with team members tends to be direct, and they are dogmatically committed to their ministry philosophy. People know where they stand, what they are to do, and where the ministry is headed.

While this leadership style can set an unhealthy ministry environment on the right path quickly, it does have some downfalls. These leaders can wear a staff down over time and drive away people who have difficulty with abrupt change. Even though their tenure may be viewed as a success, it may not be long lasting due to factors such as the organization’s eventual rejection of their leadership style or their own feeling that their job is complete once things are set in order. They sometimes leave to seek a new challenge.

2. Consensus. Confirmation. Compromise. 

These leaders seek to lead through consensus, desiring a large portion of the team to indicate a willingness to follow before moving forward with a decision. They lean toward confirming the existing staff and ministry leaders while they strive to adjust them to the new ministry model. Seldom will they make drastic changes quickly.  When faced with contrasting ministry philosophies, they seek to find points of acceptable compromise to bring groups together. As a result, more staff and ministries stay through periods of change, helping to maintain continuity. Culture change can still happen, though it may take longer to fully accomplish.

These types of leaders can be effective but change in general can be slower. With this leadership style, difficult staff and ministry decisions can seem to drag out, frustrating some team members to the point of giving up. The desire to incorporate ideas from differing ministry approaches may hinder establishing a clear strategy at all.

3. Deliberation. Delicacy. Delegation.

Deliberation is the key term with this type of leader. Nothing is rushed or done hastily. These leaders are effective in building predictability, comfort, and consistency, which are characteristics important to many people. They often delegate difficult conversations, but when they are unavoidable, these leaders will confront with a great amount of delicacy.  The recipient of the confrontation often feels little discomfort in the process. With this type of leader, there are very few surprises, team members are comfortable, and others are empowered to lead.

However, this style may be critiqued as not leading at all; rather, it is instead managing. Staff and ministry can become complacent and lack motivation to grow and adapt. Staff problems linger and are not resolved due to the lack of confrontation. Creativity is stifled because new ideas are seldom implemented. In the perceived leadership void, others may assume authority—often those with the strongest personalities rather than the most qualified.

4. Seek to adopt the strengths of all three.

We all lead according to our God-given personalities and gifts. We should know our strengths and lean on them. But we must also recognize our responsibility to grow as leaders by identifying our weaknesses and seeking to limit them. The ideal leader will not always fit neatly into any of the three descriptions above but will recognize times and situations when he or she must adopt elements of any or all of the three. The direct leader must sometimes speak with delicacy; the deliberate leader must recognize times for quick, decisive actions; and the leader who seeks consensus must be willing to blaze a new trail for his followers.  

May we all humbly acknowledge the weaknesses in our leadership style and commit to becoming better leaders by adding strengths we observe in others.