Read an Excerpt
Thriving in the Second Chair
Ten Practices for Robust Ministry (When You're Not in Charge)
By Mike Bonem Abingdon Press
Copyright © 2016 Mike Bonem
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-5018-1425-9
CHAPTER 1
Grow Toward Partnership
A true partnership can take years to achieve, but thriving second chair leaders do their part to move in that direction.
Partnership. I don't think I've ever met a second chair leader who didn't desire to be in an effective partnership with his or her first chair. Second chair leaders know that a partnership makes it possible for their church or ministry to soar and for them to experience greater fulfillment in their roles. In the eyes of many second chairs, a partnership is the pot of gold at the end of the leadership rainbow.
Most first chair leaders also endorse the value and power of a partnership. They know that the task of leading their church or ministry toward its mission is daunting and is more than any one person can accomplish. They would welcome a trusted co-laborer who can help shoulder this heavy burden.
And yet, partnerships remain elusive for most first and second chairs. This gap between aspiration and reality occurs in all different kinds of organizations: churches and denominational bodies and parachurch ministries of all different sizes, ones with well-defined visions and ones that struggle with setting clear direction. The gap can occur whether the leadership team is composed of two people or more. It can even occur when first and second chairs both desire a partnership and have years of experience working together.
Why? If a partnership is so valuable, and if everyone desires to have one, why do so many leadership teams fall short of this gold standard?
It Starts with a Definition
Many potential partnerships never get off the ground because the leaders don't work from a shared definition. If the first and second chairs talk about working as partners but have fundamentally different ideas of what this means, tension is guaranteed and "partnership" will be nothing more than lip service.
So what is a partnership? My definition is:
A commitment to sharing directional leadership decisions that is based on a common vision, an appreciation for each other's complementary gifts, and a high level of trust that develops over time.
In light of this definition, where do potential partnerships get off track? The most notable struggle for second chairs is when they interpret partnership to mean equality. Notice that this definition does not say that the parties are "equals" on the organization chart or that they have the same title (e.g., co-pastor). It does not imply that they both answer to the governing body. While there are some partnerships that operate in this manner, these are the rare exceptions. There are many effective partnerships in which it is clear that one person is the boss.
Most first chair leaders presume some amount of inequality in the relationship. Regardless of how often partnership terminology is used, first chairs feel the weight of responsibility for the church or ministry's success or failure. Their definition often goes askew when they think of the second chair as a "junior partner." This connotation sounds like a large law firm that may have many "partners." In these firms, only a few of the partners actually have leadership responsibility for the firm. The other partners have a title and significant responsibility, but they don't meet the definition offered above.
Like those law firm partners, second chair leaders may carry heavy leadership loads. The first chair may think of them as "partners in ministry." They may even be on the senior leadership team or serve as a member of the organization's governing body. They can do all of these things and add great value for the organization, but fall short of being a partner as defined above.
When a true partnership is found, it has almost always developed over time. Darlene had served for over a decade in a second chair role in her church, but she would say that she had only been a true partner for two years. She had always made a substantial leadership contribution, overseeing key initiatives, and managing much of the staff. The shift to being a partner was subtle, never official, and without a change in title. It began when Carl, the senior pastor, asked Darlene to help him lead a strategic planning process. He then asked her to spearhead the capital campaign that followed. But just as meaningful were the ways that he sought her advice more often on important issues, gave her a broader range of responsibilities, and rarely looked over her shoulder.
If you find yourself yearning to be in a true partnership, start by examining your own definition of what that means. If you have an expectation of being co-leaders, it may be time to recalibrate your expectations. Once you've done the hard work of self-examination, then you're ready for a discussion with your first chair about his or her understanding of what partnership means, how a partnership can strengthen your church or ministry, and what steps you can take to move toward one.
The Benefits of a Partnership
Even if there is agreement on the definition of partnership, first chairs may be reluctant to embrace this model. Why? Because they are not convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks.
You may wonder, "What risks?" But consider the first chair's perspective. "Sharing directional leadership decisions" requires releasing a great deal of control and authority. It creates the possibility of disagreement that can't be resolved with the first chair trump card: "Because I said so." It requires more time for making decisions. It introduces a new wrinkle in how accountability plays out, both with the partner and with the governing body. From a first chair's viewpoint, a partnership can look quite risky.
That's why it is important to clearly see the benefits. On the heels of a discussion about the definition of partnership, first and second chair leaders should articulate the advantages of this arrangement. While there are many benefits from a high-capacity person serving in the second chair, four relate uniquely to having a true partner:
• Better decisions. No one, regardless of the chair they occupy or their experience or their intellectual prowess, has all the information needed to make great strategic decisions every time. A partner brings different information, knowledge, and perspective to the table. Of course, nonpartners can also offer this value, but the commitment to shared decision-making in a partnership means that the alternative perspective can't be ignored.
• Higher buy-in. There is a noticeable difference in the energy level of second chair leaders who are treated as partners. They shift from talking about decisions in second or third person language (your priorities or his or her priorities) to first person plural (our priorities). This is far deeper than a shift in language. It indicates a level of ownership and commitment that helps propel the church or ministry forward.
• Accelerate the mission. It's no surprise, then, that the combination of better decisions and higher buy-in can have a huge impact on the trajectory of the organization. When two (or three) leaders are on the same page and are deeply committed to the mission, great outcomes are possible, and they become possible more quickly.
• Beyond loyalty. Every first chair wants the rest of the staff to be loyal. This generally is understood to mean not undermining his or her authority and diligently performing work that has been assigned. But when second chairs are partners, loyalty should not even be a question. That's because they think of "our decisions" and "our organization." If there's a problem, it is "our problem," not something to be blamed on the first chair.
As you read through these benefits, you may think that I'm preaching to the choir. In your second chair role, you see all of the advantages of a partnership, including some that I've not even mentioned. But have you discussed these with your first chair leader?
The Foundation for a Partnership
Those initial conversations between first and second chairs about the definition and benefits of partnership are important, but they are only the beginning. You cannot live into the ideal of sharing directional leadership decisions if you don't lay the foundation that is described in the rest of the definition: a common vision, an appreciation for each other's complementary gifts, and a high level of trust that develops over time.
Common Vision
It's impossible to share directional leadership decisions without a shared vision. I know that the "V" word can be confusing because it has been used in many different ways. I define vision as the "clear, shared, and compelling description of God's preferred future for your church or ministry." It describes where God is leading, and in doing so, begins to set priorities for your church or ministry.
Having a common vision does not mean that first and second chairs are always in agreement on how to achieve that vision. That's where the hard work of shared decision-making comes in. Nor does it mean that both leaders need to be "visionaries." In fact, having multiple visionary leaders is often a recipe for disaster. A common vision does, however, mean that each partner is excited about the same big dreams for the church or ministry.
Imagine a senior pastor whose eyes sparkle and voice changes when he talks about a network of mission partnerships in Africa. It is clear that this is a central part of his vision. If you're sitting in the second chair and thinking, Yes, but what about the needs in our community or in our own congregation? that may be a warning sign that common vision is lacking. On the other hand, you may feel your own excitement level rising as you hear your senior pastor talk about this vision. You may still have questions: How many partnerships? What will they look like? Can we afford this? But questions about strategy and implementation are not a sign of divergent visions. (See chapter 4 for more on strategy.)
This illustration is not meant to suggest that first chair leaders have exclusive rights in determining organizational vision. In the most effective organizations, first and second chairs (as well as other leaders) come together to discern God's preferred future for their church or ministry. They may discover a "both/and" vision that includes global and local missions. But it will never work to have the "partners" pursuing separate visions. A successful partnership must be built on a common vision.
Appreciation for Complementary Gifts
One of the great benefits of a partnership is the fact that a second chair brings different gifts, experiences, and perspectives to the leadership table. One of the great tensions for many first–second chair relationships is the fact that a second chair brings different gifts, experiences, and perspectives to the table. The very things that can make a leadership team stronger can also tear at the fabric of unity that is essential for their effectiveness.
The visionary pastor dreams about a network of mission partnerships in Africa. His dreams are full of energy and passion, which builds excitement and commitment in the congregation. The executive pastor is much more "practical." He can't help but think about the details. And there are plenty of details to work out to make this dream a reality.
In relationships that struggle, these different gifts are often seen as weaknesses or "problems." The executive pastor rolls his eyes and thinks, My senior pastor has never met an idea that he didn't like or, He has no idea what he's committing us to do. The senior pastor sees a flash of exasperation on the face of the executive pastor and thinks, There he goes again. I've never had a dream that he couldn't kill in less than five minutes.
In great partnerships, the diversity of gifts may be considerable. What is different in these relationships is that the partners value each other's unique strengths. The executive pastor knows that he is neither visionary nor charismatic, and that the church has done many bold things for God through the senior pastor's leadership. The senior pastor knows that the executive pastor has kept him (and the church) from rushing off of more than one cliff and has a tremendous ability to take raw ideas and turn them into reality. Appreciation for complementary gifts may not always be easy, but it is essential in a true partnership.
High Level of Trust
Common vision and appreciation for complementary gifts are important, but trust is the bedrock of a healthy partnership. Just as in a marriage, there will be both good and difficult times in the relationship between first and second chairs. Trust is the factor that will sustain the relationship in those rough patches.
In The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, leadership expert Patrick Lencioni puts "building trust" at the base of the pyramid for overcoming unhealthy team dynamics. When trust levels are high, team members are willing to talk through their differences. They are more likely to think the best of each other and to give the benefit of the doubt. When trust is low, even small disagreements can spiral out of control as colleagues question each other's intentions.
The senior pastor with a passion for missions in Africa faces an important question when his executive pastor starts asking about details that he hasn't considered. In that moment, will he trust that the executive pastor's intent is good? Will he believe that the executive pastor is only asking out of love for the church and the senior pastor? Or will the senior pastor hear these as "pesky" questions? Will he become suspicious, wondering what's behind the questions and suspecting that the executive pastor is undermining him? His mind could go either way in an instant, without even consciously processing these reactions. The difference in the two scenarios has little to do with the specifics of the moment and everything to do with how much trust has been built in the relationship.
If you want to thrive in the second chair, and if you aspire to a true partnership with your first chair leader, start by building trust. Don't make the mistake of thinking that trust is primarily performance based. It is important that you do a good job and that you follow through on any commitments you've made. In those cases, your first chair may say, "I trust her to do a good job." This may result in a commendation or increased responsibility, but great performance alone doesn't lead to a partnership.
True partnerships are anchored in relationship-based trust. It's the confidence that the partners have each other's backs. It's a track record of supporting one another. It's an ability to disagree without destroying the relationship. This trust requires being quick to apologize for mistakes and being equally quick to forgive. Those who fully trust have learned to keep short accounts with each other. They don't sweep things under the rug. They either forget about a grievance, or they deal with it in God-honoring ways.
Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir again, so let me ask a simple question: Do you have this kind of trust with your first chair leader? Does he or she trust you in the ways described above? If not, why not? What can you do to build trust?
Over Time
All of the foundational elements for a partnership, especially trust, take time. Over the years, I have interacted with many highly capable second chair leaders. They have consistently described a period of three to five years before they were performing at their full capacity.
At first, these responses didn't make sense to me. These people were generally gifted leaders before they stepped into the second chair. But on further reflection, I realized that they were describing the length of time before they functioned as true partners. Their learning curve was less about the skills to do the job than the nuances of the relationship. Partnerships are built on trust, and trust cannot be microwaved. Just like in a marriage, you can do a number of things along the way to make it great, but you can't rush the final product.
If you're feeling frustrated that you're not a true partner, how long have you been in your role? If your answer is less than three years, are you experiencing growth in the relationship that is moving you toward a partnership? It's possible that you simply need to be patient.
Can You Dance with More than Two?
I vividly remember one second chair's comment when I asked him about the transition to a new senior pastor: "We're still learning how to dance together." It's a great image for any second chair to keep in mind. Dancing has an element that is technical and mechanical — following the beat of the music, knowing the steps of the dance. But if this is all that you master, the dance will not have any beauty. When two people dance well together, they transcend the technical aspects. There's grace in their moves. They anticipate each other's actions. They can be spontaneous and well coordinated at the same time.
This raises a natural question: Is it possible to have an effective partnership with more than two people? Can you still create a beautiful, fluid leadership dance with three or four people? Just as in a dance, the complexity grows exponentially with each additional person, but it is possible to create a strong leadership team that has the characteristics of partnership described in the preceding section.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Thriving in the Second Chair by Mike Bonem. Copyright © 2016 Mike Bonem. Excerpted by permission of Abingdon Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
