No “No-Brainers”
Nothing pleases me more than receiving a call from a colleague or friend, asking if I have a few minutes to offer my take on a situation they’re facing. I got such a call while on a long drive earlier this week. My colleague was feeling frustrated and exhausted, so I tried not to sound too giddy to have the chance to work on a puzzle with him. I wasn’t taking pleasure in his suffering, but rather I was flattered he reached out and as curious as one might expect, given my passion for the study of ministerial leadership.
I won’t go into the specifics of the case my friend presented, but rather I’ll share an unsettling dynamic I recognized in it from other institutions I know and serve. What caught my attention was my colleague’s constituents’ failure to understand and honor the situation’s complexity. My friend was dealing with a wide array tensions and intersecting moral priorities. Each of his constituents, however, seemed to think the situation was simple, with only one possible solution: the one that favored their position. Those constituents’ denseness was something he was ready to set aside as the cost of doing business, but I wondered if they ought to be let off the hook so easily.
My friend needed to hear from me that all the input he was getting, telling him that the dilemma he was trying to untangle was a no-brainer, was inaccurate and unhelpful. If it were a no-brainer, he would have resolved the matter long ago, because he has a big brain. He needed to hear me say, “This is not an easy call; it’s a tough one. You’re smart and kind and wise, and you’ll get through it, but don’t let anybody tell you this situation is simple.”
To be effective leaders today requires use of our whole brains: intelligence, empathy, strategic savvy. Leaders must play chess, not checkers, thinking ahead to long-term ramifications with each move we make. We have to think about fairness to all, not the entitlement of one.
You might have heard it said that it’s lonely at the top, as though it’s normal and to be expected that those who lead and manage the institutions and communities are doomed to a life where they receive no understanding from their constituents as to how complicated the work of leadership can be. I don’t accept loneliness in leadership as normal or necessary. We all need to wake up to how hard our leaders’ jobs are and give them our understanding, even when we don’t agree with them, even when we hadn’t voted for them.
Leaders shouldn’t be the only ones responsible for looking at the world in a nuanced way that takes into consideration the differing views that coexist even within small and homogeneous communities. Why do I think it not too much to ask that constituents empathize with their leaders? Because everyone’s a leader somewhere. The church member might be head of a household. The staff member in one setting could easily be the president of a community organization.
For those who are followers in one place and leaders in another, demonstrating empathy toward bosses, elected officials, and pastors helps them to be more effective leaders where they are in-charge. If they observe leadership in one setting with an open mind, they receive leadership development for settings where they are in charge. Furthermore, open-hearted approaches to their leaders in settings where they are under the authority of another will likely to help them to be kinder to themselves when leadership challenges where they’re on top throw them for a loop.
Students have a right to protest the war on Gaza, as the war is deplorable, as was the October 7 attack that sparked this round of violence in a region that’s been unsettled for multiple generations. Their smartness amidst protests can benefit everyone. When students take seriously that they should understand the politics and history of the region that’s at war, ensuring that their chants are grounded in knowledge and understanding, they grow intellectually.
When they recognize that their institutions’ administrations are juggling numerous competing commitments — to a healthy learning environment, to protection of community safety, to the emotional well-being of all in their care — they get better results when negotiating. They also prepare their future selves for leadership, in all its ambiguity and complexity.
Narratives of “heroes” and “villains” are not helpful to living in-community. Because the job of leadership has many dimensions to it, we’re wise to take a nuanced approach to assessing our leaders. If their jobs come with numerous, varied responsibilities, we should expect that they’ll be stronger on some than others. President Lyndon B. Johnson was great on domestic affairs, not great on foreign ones. President Ronald Reagan could get along with anybody, but a lot of covert violence took place under his watch. Historians shouldn’t be the only ones expected to use their intellects when considering leaders’ strengths and weaknesses.
Pontius Pilate was the judge who condemned Jesus to death, but when we look at his story more closely, we can see that he had a complicated job. Take a look at Luke 23:1–25. Pilate was no hero, but he was only one of many participants in Jesus’ condemnation, so can we rightly call him the villain? Not if we want to learn something for ourselves about how evil works through each and every one of us. Nothing pleases the devil more than watching us turn on each other, rather than detecting the devil’s presence in our own hearts and minds.
We need smart leaders. Smart leaders work on a landscape of competing moral commitments and overlapping power dynamics. Their decisions will always please some, and not others. We and they benefit when we take a nuanced view on their choices. They benefit because working with clueless constituents, who think the job is easy, is depressing. We benefit because, when we cut our leaders some slack today, we’re more likely to be kinder to ourselves tomorrow.
If we want better leaders, we need to be better followers in settings where that’s our role. Except for small children, human brains are capable of seeing the world through multiple viewpoints. Leaders shouldn’t be the only ones charged with the responsibility of understanding complex situations, while followers get to throw rocks at them. We don’t just need smart leaders; we need everyone’s smarts, because today’s problems are not no-brainers.
