When I saw my local Blockbuster having a going-out-of-business sale, I thought their decline was related mostly to the success of Netflix and hulu.com. This article in the Harvard Business Review shows a different side to the story.
The executive summary: an activist investor (who gained control of the corporate board) led an campaign that torpedoed the successful strategy of the CEO.
While there are certainly two sides to the story (as in every situation), I can see a parallel between the corporate situation between a CEO and an activist board member and the ministry situation between a pastor and an elder (board member) with a personal agenda. This may be a righteous dissent in cases of belligerent evil on the part of the leadership; but often it is a case of a disgruntled person gaining power over the church. I have not experienced this personally; but I have heard many stories of it happening. It usually isn’t pretty.
How does a leader handle (or prevent) this situation? A couple of pointers I picked up from this article:
1. Don’t make it a personal war. Leaders take ownership in their projects and their companies/churches; when conflict comes we need to draw a line between ministry and personal. I was impressed to hear Antioch (the former CEO) say he would sit down for dinner with Icahn (the activist shareholder).
2. Want the company/ministry to succeed. This must be priority over my personal desire to succeed. The church people will be around longer than I will.
What do you think?
This article is interesting to me as my previous life involved finance and investment selection. So I come from a little different perspective, having studied and seen many CEO's that led their companies poorly. Oftentimes, activist investors are exactly what the company needs. Sometimes, the activist investors add just enough of a different perspective and the needed pressure upon the existing Board and CEO for them to break from the status quo that they had been happily living in while receiving 7 & 8 figure compensation.
ReplyDeleteThis being said, oftentimes outside critics always believe that they can do better than the one(s) who is (are) making the decisions. When this is the attitude, it often leads to failures. This is because the behind the scenes activity and influences are not known to those who want to take control.
However, I appreciate the response in this article to the “activist shareholders.” We cannot receive criticism and make healthy change if we feel personally attacked at each suggestion. The second is equally good. It is destructive when our own personal success and pride are more important than the success of the organization.