[Note: This is the first of what will be three or four consecutive posts on the principles of "shadow leadership." Some may find the subject tedious; I understand that sentiment, and know some may wish to skip reading these posts. It is hardly the most riveting subject. Nonetheless, it is at the heart of what we are doing in Malawi, as we work with local leaders and members. It has taken me months to think through both the underlying principles and the potential pitfalls.]
A. Principles
of Shadow Leadership for MLS Senior Missionaries[1]
1. Senior
Missionaries As “Shadow Leaders”
Except in the few cases where MLS senior missionaries may be
given “line responsibility,”[2] [3]MLS senior missionaries are
expected to serve as “shadow leaders.”
Without getting technical, this means that senior missionaries are asked
to provide support to existing priesthood and auxillary leaders, by giving
largely behind-the-scene advice and guidance, to allow them to perform more
fully their duties. There are three
keys to “shadow leadership:” first, it is in-service training of existing local
leaders; second, the training is provided by experienced members, by assignment
from their priesthood leaders, but those experienced members do not have line
responsibility or supervisory authority over the local leaders being trained; and
third, the training is to be administered in a manner (“shadow” in nature”)
that is respectful of the callings of the local leaders, recognizing that it is
they who have been called, not the senior missionaries, to serve in those
callings. These three concepts are
critical to understanding the role senior missionaries are to play in working
with local leaders.
Anyone asked to serve as a “shadow leader” recognizes the assignment
has peculiar challenges—it being harder to pull off successfully than one might
first anticipate. Occasionally, one
witnesses an exceptional example of “shadow leadership,” but more often, we have
struggled,and we have watched other struggle, trying to balance constructive help
with respect for existing authorities. [4] Carole and I would be the first to confess
that our attempts at “shadow leadership” have not been unqualified successes;
we often wonder---whether local leaders want the support; whether we have
really found the best ways to train without unduly interfering with the
authority of local leaders; and, how likely it will be that our “influence”
will extend much beyond the end of our mission.
Whatever changes in Church
operations we witness during our mission—will they stick after we are gone or
will everything just revert to the way it was before we arrived. Perhaps, it is precisely these concerns that
have caused me to wait so long to collect my thoughts about “shadow
leadership.” [5]
2. In-Service
Training of Local Leaders
The first thing to remember about shadow leadership is that
it is one of many ways of providing in-service training to existing local
leaders.[6] Given the lay nature of Church leadership, and
the constant turnover in positions, the Church is continually training its
members as to the duties that come with the various callings in the
Church. Each Church position has unique
duties, which need to be learned, before the member can do all that is asked of
him or her. The duties of an institute
teacher are quite different from those of a Sunday School teacher or Elders
Quorum or Relief Society instructor, even though each position involves the
teaching of gospel principles. Through
this training, the Church hopes to uplift the entire membership of the Church,
recognizing that over a lifetime, each member holds a multitude of different
callings. One may serve for a while as
a Sunday School teacher, then as a branch clerk, and later as a leader working
with the branch’s young men. Each
calling is intended to bless the lives of those one is called to serve, as well
as to bless the one called to serve.
The Church does not consider these callings to be
random. Instead, it is believed that God
himself is the source of the inspiration behind the callings. Priesthood leaders, when listening to the
promptings of the Holy Spirit, are inspired as to whom they should call to hold
specific positions. This process of
inspiration is akin to the inspiration behind the calling of Aaron, Moses’
brother, to serve, together with his literal male descendents, as priests for
the House of Israel. “For every high
priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God
that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:….And no man taketh this
hounour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.”[7] The same inspiration is behind callings,
whether the callings are to serve in priesthood positions or to serve in Church
auxiliaries. At no time does the
shadow leader replace the local leaders—the shadow leader is not called, not
given priesthood keys or authority, not asked to minister directly to the needs
of the saints under the jurisdiction of local leaders. The only role senior missionaries are to
play is that of giving support to local leaders. All keys, responsibilities, powers,
blessings, and attendant rights and responsibilities stay in the hands of local
leaders. They and they alone are the
ones authorized to serve in the positions to which they are called.
3. Training
by Experienced Members Not in the Priesthood Line of Authority
While senior missionaries help train local leaders, they are
not in the priesthood line of authority, and have no direct supervisory control
over local leaders. The training
assignment given to senior missionaries comes from the Mission President, who
himself is in the priesthood line of authority.
For example, we serve at the direction of President Erickson, who
currently is the presiding officer for all Districts, and independent branches,
located in Malawi and Zambia. The only
members he does not have direct responsibility for are the members of the
recently-organized Lusaka Zambia Stake.
The Mission President cannot feasibly handle the training of all local
leaders, so it makes sense that he might choose to delegate to senior
missionaries some of that responsibility.
Each Mission President has discretion in how broadly or
narrowly he delegates “training” responsibility upon senior missionaries
working within his mission. He can choose to be very specific in his
assignments or give general instructions. In our case, President Erickson has chosen to
give rather general instructions—our mandate is to help out local leaders and
members however we could, supporting in particular a couple of
branches—Zingwangwa and Blantyre 2nd.
We were asked also to be a resource for the Blantyre District
Presidency. Those with whom we work do
not report to us, but instead report, and are accountable to, the District
Presidency, which in turn is accountable to the Mission President.
The reason for using senior missionaries in this capacity is
easy to decipher. Most have years of
experience in the Church, have held positions of the types held by the local
leaders, are available on a full-time basis to help out with training and
support, and are on-site. They
certainly constitute a resource for training, available to augment the other
training tools used by the Church.
4. Training
in A Manner Respectful to the Callings of Local Leaders
Everything senior missionaries do in supporting local
leaders must key off one seminal principle—senior missionaries must always
train in a manner respectful of the callings of local leaders—meaning that they
must recognize that local leaders are and must remain in charge, however much
training they need at the hands of senior missionaries. Senior missionaries should never undermine
the authority of local leaders. Wit
this seminal principal in mind, the following are sub-principles to follow when
training local leaders:
[1]
All references in this section to “senior missionaries” should be understood to
refer to “MLS senior missionaries.”
[2] A senior missionary would have line
responsibility if called to hold, during his or her mission, a regular position
in the Church, such as serving as a branch or elders quorum president or relief
society or primary president. Generally
speaking, it is preferable to have local members hold these positions and to
look to senior missionaries for advice and counsel, allowing local members to
have direct hands-on experience, rather than to learn vicariously by watching
senior missionaries serving in those positions.
[3]
During the first 11 months of my mission, I served as the First Counselor in
the Mission Presidency. This did put me
in a line position, since serving in that capacity left me as the presiding
priesthood holder at any meeting I attended, except when the Mission President
himself was in attendance. However, as
the First Counselor in the Mission Presidency, my mandate was only as broad as
the delegation of “authority” I received from the Mission President. Each priesthood holder holding priesthood
keys has certain non-delegable duties—duties he must perform himself and cannot
delegate to others. With respect to the
duties that may be delegated to others, the priesthood holder has discretion as
to how much or how little he wishes to delegate such duties to counselors or
others acting under his supervision. To
the extent the duties are not delegated, they are retained by the presiding
priesthood leader, and he is responsible for their performance. President Erickson assigned some specific
duties to me—such as calling and releasing full-time missionaries; conducting
temple recommend interviews; and extending certain priesthood callings. President Erickson expected me to provide
some oversight to the activities of the District and its branches, but for the
most part he did not want me to interfere with the local leaders. President Ericksion himself was loathe to
interference with the local leaders, affording them considerable discretion in
the performance of their duties. Moreover,
President Erickson retained full and complete responsibility for the conduct
and training of the full-time missionaries.
They were to report and account to him alone and not to either of his
counselors.
[4]
Early in our mission, we watched Amos Monjeza, then the Zingwangwa clerk, work
with Alex(ander) Tsegula, who was a newly-called branch mission leader. Both of us felt he was as good a “shadow”
leader as we had ever seen. He was
patient, gentle, and content to stay in the background, while still providing
useful guidance and support
[5]
This section is being written after we have been in Malawi for 13 months. By now we have worked with local leaders in
two branches (Zingwangwa first and Blantyre 2nd second) and two
different district presidencies for the Blantyre Distirct. When we arrived in Blantyre, President
Chinyumba was the District President, assisted by his two counselors,
Presidents Mwale and Matale. In early
November 2015, the District Presidency was reorganized, President Matale the former
2nd Counselor being called to serve as the new District President,
and Presidents Chikapa and Chnomwe were called to serve as his First and Second
Counselors, respectively. President
Chinyumba in turn was called to be the First Counselor in the Zambia Lusaka
Mission, replacing me in that assignment, and he was delegated the primary
portfolio for overseeing the welfare of the Church members in Malawi, working
under the direction of the Mission President.
[6]
See “Church Training” above.
[7]
Heb. 5: 1; 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment