Leadership

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 28 August 2010

After much prayer and discussion with Sarah, I have come to the conclusion that it is time for me to initiate a transition plan that will ultimately result in my leaving the presidency of Cornerstone University.

I have enjoyed many blessings of God in my years as President, but I believe it is time for Sarah and me to seek whatever new adventure God intends for us. I am 54 years of age, enjoy good health, have been in the presidency for 16 years, and have completed a number of university initiatives we set out to accomplish.

It is a good time for me to make a change. It is a good time for the university to seek a new leader to take it to the next level.

At its meeting last Friday, I informed the Cornerstone University Board of Trustees of my intentions and the Board, while surprised, acted graciously in accepting, approving, and after some thought appreciating my proposed transition plan. The plan maximizes the Board's ability to construct and conduct a professional presidential search, something that typically requires as much as a year to implement.

The Board's response will allow me to work together with trustees to manage this transition and its announcement in a manner that reinforces Cornerstone University. Presidential transitions can be noisy, political, and too often hurtful to the schools involved. On the other hand, transitions can be smooth, professional, and actually a benefit to all involved. Both models have been evident in West Michigan in the past couple of years. I prefer the latter example.

Given that this is the end of the academic year, with the Board's support, I expect to continue as CU President likely into the next academic year, departing by May 31, 2008. This gives me time to connect with other organizations and it allows me to work with the Board to orchestrate as smooth and as seamless a passing of the baton as we can.

I am open to whatever God wants for me, e.g., another leadership position in a Christian college or university or perhaps in a different kind of Christian nonprofit organization, corporate or consulting work, etc.

I have nothing but good things to say about Cornerstone University and my experience here. I’ve given the role my all, I’ve tried to honor God in what we did and why we did it, and I believe that any objective measure will indicate the university is better positioned today than it was in 1991. I expect to tell media I have enjoyed my service, I have been blessed with a good run, and I am seeking God’s next step in our journey.

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2007

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 28 August 2010

One of the greatest lessons I learned during my undergraduate experience was a lesson in leadership. I did not know it then, but God had plans for me, plans that required me to understand a few things about people before he would entrust me with his purposes.

During my junior and senior years, I became the vice president then the president of a men’s service organization. I had enjoyed this club since becoming part of it right after arriving on campus. We set up and tore down banquets, assisted in county health and emergency needs, provided muscle for campus clean ups and other projects, and sponsored the annual spring celebration, a day of silly games, special luncheons, off-campus visitors, and of course a queen. As the president I got to escort the queen and help her plant the traditional tree. I moved on to escort another lady through life, but the tree still stands.

In my role as president I was directly responsible for the events of the big day. Every activity had to be planned and someone had to be found to develop and administer the activity. This is where I began my extracurricular lessons.

I discovered that there are several kinds of people (in this case it was all men, consistent with our club at the time). There are:

· People who say, “Yes,” and never fulfill their promise.

· People who say, “No,” mean it, and never do anything.

· People who must be begged, cajoled, urged, flattered, or even “threatened” with “dire” consequences, who eventually agree to do the job—maybe.

· People who say, “Yes,” but must be monitored while they do the work to assure it’s accomplished as mutually planned.

· People who say, “Yes,” do not require supervision, complete the task, and do it excellently.

I learned that the latter type of person is all-too-rare. But they do exist. One such person is Dr. Kevin Sims, who is now teaching at our alma mater. Kevin and I served together in that men’s club, and I will never forget his reliability, work ethic, and integrity. When he said he’d do something, it got done—well and on time. And once he took charge, I never gave the task a second thought. So I learned that this kind of commitment both achieves and liberates. It completes the task, and it frees the leader to move on to other things. So this kind of person makes a double contribution.

I’ve met only a few Kevins in my leadership experience, but I’ve learned to look for and greatly esteem them. They are the right kind of “Yes Men/Women.” They are “Do-ers” and “Builders,” people whose works are an apt expression of their faith.

I also learned not only to look for these kinds of people but to try to be this kind of person. I learned that how I handle assigned task says volumes about my character and my faith.

“Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men” (Colossians 3:23).

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 05 September 2010

I written before that I believe one of President George W. Bush’s greatest liabilities is his under developed communication skills. He may possess the right values on many issues, or at least in terms of his desire to do right and do well by the American people and his office. But he just can’t sell his ideas, much less defend his actions.

I believe his second greatest liability as a leader is his seeming unwillingness to admit it when he makes a mistake. While at times he may be admirably resolute, as many more times he is questionably inflexible. He’s not simply confident but possibly stubborn and loyal to a fault. What else can possibly explain the President’s expression of “full support” once again this week for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Whatever your politics on the War in Iraq, you have to recognize by now that if President Bush is known for doggedly staying his course, Rumsfeld is a major leaguer in this category.

Rumsfeld’s leadership style is arrogant, imperial, condescending if not demeaning, argumentative, and bellicose. Americans who have watched him the past several years can see this and six retired generals weighed in this week with comparable observations. Why can’t President Bush see it? Or admit it? And if he does know it, as his advisors say that he does, and as I must believe that he does, than why does he persist in his support for a man who has come to embody much of what’s gone wrong with Iraq? Unless President Bush can’t own a mistake or make a course correction.

Six retired generals do not a conclusion make. But surely their comments this week must make us think. These are men taught from their teens to say, “Yes sir,” or “No sir.” The stars on their shoulders attest to their ability to follow and execute orders. These are not rabble rousers, uninformed blokes in a bar, academic liberals, or the front lines of a loyal opposition in another political party. These are military men speaking to military issues, and to a man they question the nature and quality of leadership directing America’s commitment in Iraq.

I’m not suggesting the United States should simply pull out of Iraq. For good rationale or maybe not so good rationale, we’re there, and we must see this through to some kind of stability. But I wonder if Rumsfeld can get us there.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 03 September 2010

Aristotle once said, "Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way -- that is not easy." Aristotle got it right.

But my experience suggests that most people are not as particular as Aristotle about how they become angry, what they become angry about, or whether they’re aiming their anger—or criticism—at the right person in the right way.

I’ve said for years that you can’t be in leadership for longer than ten minutes without being criticized. Leaders always attract both more kudos and more blame than they deserve. Criticism is part of the reason Harry Truman said, “If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.”

But the kitchen is getting hotter. What seems to be changing is the intensity of criticism. People don’t just criticize. They criticize even relatively minor actions of leaders at a level of emotional and rhetorical intensity that is at times startling in its rancor. This is true whether you are a nationally recognized leader like the President of the United States or you are a leader in your church, community, or local organization.

My experience teaches me that when people disagree with a leader’s decision or action some respond by asking questions and expressing concern. These people are looking for understanding and resolution, not self-righteous victory. But these people are dwindling in number.

My experience also suggests that an alarmingly increasing number of people who become upset with a leader’s decision respond in one of the following ways:

They make assumptions, do not check their facts, and respond in a manner that has the leader tried, found guilty, and preferably “executed” before he or she is given an opportunity to answer the criticism.

They use emotionally loaded terms, even invective.
They question not simply the merits of a decision or action; they question the integrity, motives, and character of the leader.
They do not ask questions; they attack.
They demonstrate an incredible level of cynicism or outright distrust toward leaders and toward organizations.
They assume leaders make decisions or take actions wholly driven by self-interest and without regard for others or what might be considered objectively and morally right or best.

I realize this list paints a rather dark picture. But I’ve read too many letters, notes, or emails and participated in too many calls or even direct conversations characterized by one or more elements of this list.

I believe the increasing emotional and rhetorical intensity I see in criticism is rooted in the moral breakdown of culture. People do not trust anyone anymore because they’ve been “burned” by family members who’ve abandoned, abused, or otherwise rejected them. People believe others always lie because they’ve often been lied to. Too many people react angrily because they do not know how else to react.

The solution to this problem is obvious but not easy to implement. Our culture and in turn each one of us needs a spiritual revival. We need to understand that “God is love” so that we can love others. We need to know that God will forgive us so that we may forgive others, seasoning our speech with longsuffering, hope, and trust.

I cannot be responsible for everyone else’s behavior, but I certainly am responsible for my own. I can learn to receive and give criticism in a manner that honors God.

By no means am I perfect and by no means have I always responded properly to others with whom I’ve disagreed. But as a pattern I think I have learned to proceed carefully, check my facts, ask questions, and treat the other with respect. If after all this I still disagree than I can at least disagree agreeably.

I tell people never to respond “in kind,” never put in print what will shame you if it makes the newspapers, and never attack. I’ve learned to offer constructive criticism, and I’m hoping to help others to learn the same. How to criticize is, ironically perhaps, one of the lessons I’ve learned in leadership.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 01 September 2010

The Crystal Cathedral’s recent investiture of Robert H. Schuller’s son, Robert A. Schuller, as pastor of the Crystal Cathedral is the latest in a series of similar family leadership successions in Christian ministries.

Bob Jones followed Bob Jones who followed Bob Jones as the president of Bob Jones University. Richard Roberts followed his father as president of Oral Roberts University and associated ministries. Franklin Graham inherited his father Billy Graham’s leadership of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and affiliated ministries. John Osteen went to his reward and his at-first reluctant but now phenomenally successful son Joel Osteen followed his father to the leadership of Lakewood Church in Houston. Gordon Robertson is apparently heir apparent of his father Pat Robertson at CBN in Virginia Beach. Somewhat distinct from the others yet a similar story is Andy Stanley’s founding of North Point Community Church across town from his father Charles Stanley’s longtime ministry at First Baptist Church of Atlanta.

Sons and daughters have long followed their parents into “the family business”—it even happens in politics—think George H. and George W. Bush. But a Christian ministry is not a family business, particularly when the sons typically possess very different skills than their fathers and may evidence very different levels of spiritual commitment or maturity.

I’m not suggesting there is necessarily something unbiblical or otherwise unwise about these successions. But I do find them interesting. I’ve wondered what discussions have taken place about the son’s sense of calling, what motivates the son to take the reins, and what constituents think about the appropriateness of the choice versus others that could have been made. I’ve wondered what a famous name, family features, and sometimes a similar tone of voice or mannerisms have to do with the ability to lead a Christian organization for the Lord’s service.

That said, I think the Graham transition has been especially strong and effective. Franklin possesses an “edge” that Billy did not evidence, which provides a voice I think our culture needs. I appreciate him. All in all, these successions may indeed be God’s best. Clearly it is these families’ and organizations’ responsibility, not mine. I wonder about it, but I wish them well.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 August 2010

Leadership and optimism go hand in hand. At least that’s what surveys and experience repeatedly indicate. Del Jones’ review in today’s edition of “USA Today” of recent surveys, CEO commentary, and scholarship found that leaders were more optimistic than others about almost everything at work. He quotes leadership guru, Warren Bennis, saying, “Optimism is all about possibilities, change, hope. Without those qualities, how can any leaders succeed?” General Dwight D. Eisenhower would have agreed.

In his excellent work, Eisenhower: Soldier and President, late historian Stephen E. Ambrose noted that General Eisenhower saw two advantages in maintaining a cheerful and hopeful attitude when he spoke to his troops, one, the “habit tends to minimize potentialities within the individual himself to become demoralized,” two, it “has a most extraordinary effect upon all with whom he comes in contact. With this clear realization, I firmly determined that my mannerisms and speech in public would always reflect the cheerful certainty of victory—that any pessimism and discouragement I might ever feel would be reserved for my pillow. I adopted a policy of circulating through the whole force to the full limit imposed by physical considerations. I did my best to meet everyone from general to private with a smile, a pat on the back, and a definite interest in his problems.”

From a Christian perspective, optimism is a product of hope. In my book, Christian Liberty: Living for God in a Changing Culture, I talked at some length about optimism and hope:

"A hope is only as good as its foundation or focus. Christian hope—a confident expectation of fulfillment—is based upon an objective source of divine personality, strength, and power in Jesus Christ. It is not, therefore, a vain, irrationally conceived, frivolous human wish but a rational confidence in something real. Christian hope rests upon truth revealed in Christ, truth experienced in the Christian life, and truth expected in the coming of Christ's kingdom.

Christian hope operates between the extremes of fatalism on the one hand and utopianism on the other. Modernity's mentality was dominated by naturalistic humanism, optimistically espousing permanent growth and well-being in a secular leap of faith. Postmodernity, on the other hand, is witness to a new, desperate, if not nihilistic mentality that is uncertain about the future, technology, or life itself. The modern mentality dreamed of progress. The postmodern mentality has given way to pessimism, even panic. Neither Mod nor PoMo culture has an answer for death. A Christian hope rejects both positions as unwarranted and unbiblical extremes.

In the words of a popular Christian song, “because Christ lives, we may face tomorrow.” Our hope is grounded in a person of the Godhead and in an already accomplished historical event: Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. The promise of our deliverance in time and ultimate reconciliation with Christ in heaven is sure. We may believe and, therefore, we may have hope.

Certainly a Christian can neither be an unqualified optimist nor an unqualified pessimist. Philosophic humanists generally embrace one extreme or the other, because they have no basis as Christians do for intellectually assimilating both good and evil. Christians should be optimistic though not with the irrational faith of the evolutionary theorist or the blind faith of Western culture in the idea of progress. Neither should any Christian ever be a pessimist. Pessimism is reserved for those who have not hope.

A Christian's optimism must be tempered by realism. The world and humanity are fallen and cursed. Evil continues, abated only by the restraining power of the Holy Spirit and God’s common grace. All of us are sinners in need of redemption. And realism serves as a warning against temptations to triumphalism. Humility, not bravado, must characterize the Christian hope. Christians should be both optimistic and realistic, or “optimistic realists.”

As optimistic realists with a well-developed Christian worldview, Christians should evidence humble hope and confidence in a culture that no longer believes either one is possible. If we do this, our lives become books with a message our neighbors can read, one that points them to the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Hope produces resolve in the face of obstacles and resiliency in the wake of troubles, all of which are indispensable characteristics for a leader.

Christian leaders above all should be hopeful people, men and women who inspire their followers to do great things for God in an age hungry for real leadership, real ethics, and real hope.