Yesterday I promised one more look at this idea:

All I’m suggesting in these measurement posts is that think about what we’re doing and how we can measure the right kind of success. How we measure may even drive what we do or how we do it. More on that tomorrow.

Navigator colleague Justin Gravitt, a “next-generation” leader in Navigator Church Ministries, wrote about a disappointing experience with what he thought was going to be advanced leadership training. It started like this:

Not long ago I hugged my kids goodbye, stepped onto an airplane and into a faraway hotel to participate in five days of leadership training.

It didn’t start there.

Nine months earlier, I was invited to apply to a year-long leadership development opportunity. Not long after, I was selected from a pool of applicants to participate. Before arriving I worked for two months to complete a number of thought-provoking assignments.

I was excited.

It began with an engaging mixer. Then a presenter stood up and reminded us that we were “leaders of leaders,” that many had applied, but few had been chosen. It was after those opening remarks that it happened; a lecture broke out. Followed by another. And then another. -Justin Gravitt, “In Leadership the HOW Matters“

“A lecture broke out.” Justin went on to explain why he was disappointed.

Sure, they called us “leaders of leaders,” but they didn’t relate to us that way. Instead, we were treated as people who needed to be taught how to lead. We had a problem to be solved. And they knew how to solve it. They knew what we needed (even if we didn’t). In other words, they were the experts and we were the consumers. In our culture of consumerism this model of people development is repeated every day. It happens in churches and companies. It’s the dance of consumerism.

Justin’s whole article is worth the read. What I want to focus on as we conclude this series on Measuring the Wrong Thing, is that the “leadership development” people might have been driven by metrics. It’s hard to measure leadership and leadership development. It’s easy to define a selection process, count the number of people who applied, count the number who actually enrolled, and record what the lectures were about. Then they can say something like, “We carefully selected so many ‘leaders of leaders’ and taught them X, Y, and Z.”

Justin calls the “I lecture/you listen” process a culture of consumerism. I’ve written about this before. In churches, we have the pastor and adult Sunday School teachers as teachers. Everyone else is a student. And everyone likes it that way. 2 Timothy 2.2, however, does not allow for a permanent student class:

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. (2 Timothy 2.2, NIV)

Jesus certainly didn’t develop the twelve by lecture: his method was a “relational laboratory.” And he measured “success” not by the number of followers, but by what they did as leaders.

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6.66 – 68, NIV)

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. (Acts 1.8, NIV)

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them…Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say….” (Acts 2.1 – 4, 14, NIV)