“Many executives are surprised when previously successful leadership approaches fail in new situations, but different contexts call for different kinds of responses. Before addressing a situation, leaders need to recognize which context governs it—and tailor their actions accordingly.”

This summary statement from a 2007 article in the Harvard Business Review (“A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making”) lays out a key problem in all kinds of organizations. Authors David Snowden and Mary Boone describe how rapid changes can render leaders who act capably in one context suddenly unable to cope in another domain.*

Does this perhaps sound like your church, business, or organization? Dramatic changes have come in bunches in the past few years. From the COVID-19 pandemic to waning interest in organized religion to racial and political stress, most leaders find it increasingly difficult to navigate these hazards.

Snowden’s and Boone’s research points out that the problem is not an issue of leadership competence. Those who were previously successful in leading churches did not suddenly lose their competence, as this article makes clear. What has happened is that the context has changed, and the struggling leader is now mismatched for the current situation.

Snowden and Boone land upon a framework for understanding the contexts in which organizations might exist. They call it the Cynefin framework. “Cynefin,” they write, “pronounced ku-nev-in, is a Welsh word that signifies the multiple factors in our environment and our experience that influence us in ways we can never understand.” In this Cynefin framework are four contexts in which organizations and their leaders must operate.

“Simple” contexts have easy-to-follow, cause-and-effect relationships. One church might surmise, “If we improve our children’s ministry, more families will attend.” There are seasons where church management is rather straightforward both to everyone. There may be obstacles to needed changes, and implementation may not be easy. Yet most church folks are well equipped to competently function in this domain.

“Complicated” contexts may also provide cause-and-effect outcomes, but the journey to get there may be less obvious. This becomes the domain of experts who are trained to analyze and sense problems while moving toward solutions. For example, there is no one right way to lead worship. Praise teams, song leaders, bands can all be effective. Styles can vary greatly, and a multiplicity of gifts can be utilized. Successful leadership in this context requires expertise to balance needs and assets while paying attention to good theology and church tradition.

“Complex” contexts move into territory where there are no known solutions or proven techniques. Leaders who successfully operate in this context may often appear to be “making it up as they go” because they are in fact operating through trial and error. The political rancor of the past decade provides an excellent example. Many church members have exited their churches over politics, leaving church leaders to wonder what they are supposed to do. For a leader trained to operate in either of the first two contexts, a complex setting can be incredibly frustrating because there are many variables and no clear outcomes. This context requires discussion among diverse voices. This complexity requires a different kind of leadership than the prior two types of contexts.

“Chaotic” contexts are like complex contexts on steroids. This is the realm of rapid response, much like during the recent pandemic. Many church leaders during the pandemic have said, “I just didn’t know what to do.” There were no proven answers, and guidance changed frequently. Leadership in this context requires quick action and innovation. This may suit an “in-charge” leader because it rewards successful top-down management. Snowden and Boone point out that many of our society’s “leadership recipes”—as well as the most highly applauded models for leading—have emerged from these chaotic contexts.

Most organizations, such as churches, must occasionally operate in all four, and this is challenging. “Many leaders lead effectively,” write Boone and Snowden, “though usually in only one or two domains (not in all of them) and few, if any, prepare their organizations for diverse contexts.” In other words, if church leadership is centralized within a small cadre of people who may think alike, they may find it difficult to operate in shifting domains.

With the rapidly changing contexts of the past decade, it’s not hard to understand why so many churches feel lost and rudderless. This doesn’t mean that church leaders have suddenly lost the ability to lead but that they are not operating in their best domains. 

The good news is that help is nearby. Most churches possess a variety of skills and life situations amongst their members. Unless your church has withered significantly, you probably have the people in your church who can help you navigate these changing domains. The challenge is to share authority and decision-making and to find ways to pass along the keys not just to the building but to the actual direction of the church.

Imagine a church where a new problem arises. The lead minister or elder may genuinely be puzzled, thinking “What should we do?” Instead of panicking or leading poorly, there is an atmosphere of transparency where problems are shared outside the board room. Someone else steps forward and answers, “I (or we) have got this.”

If you consider that scenario just a little bit, doesn’t this sound like how the church ought to function anyway? God has given the church all the gifts needed for life and godliness. We as the church simply need the awareness to see where those gifts lie.

* I am grateful for the work of Michael Moynagh for pointing this out in his helpful book, Church for Every Context (SCM Press: 2012), 198-200.