Does leadership require a team? Does the team paradigm enhance the function of leadership? I believe so. All the current leadership agrees, yet . . . what do you do when you find yourself in a context which gives verbal assent to the concept while practicing a practical autocracy? Depending upon your position within the organization . . . and the approachableness of the autocrat, the answer may be "live with it." This is hardly an answer, however, for the individual who seeks the fulfillment which could be part of such a team. In this case, it will be up to the individual to evaluate his own calling, position of service and prayerfully consider what God wants, both for the organization (which may mean sticking with the program) and the individual.

Issues on Strategic Planning. It is amazing to me that this concept is so misunderstood. Planning which is strategic is simply planning which is designed to accomplish a set of goals. Thus, Strategic Planning is completely mis-named if one does not have a set of goals or outcomes. If one has a goal, in the church world for instance, of developing a better, more informed, awareness of the Word of God among the congregation, then the strategic plan would lead to that reality. Obviously, time-lines and resources are important considerations, as is the very real consideration of just how many goals an institution can pursue at any one time (and which of these have the highest priority). These factors make strategic planning complex, but even more complex than the plan, in my opinion is the process used to define the goals, thier priority, and the time line for accomplishing those goals. And this hinges upon the mission of the institution. Another factor is the "brand" image of the institution both internally and externally. OK, I guess I can see how strategic planning can be mis-understood. After all if you undertake to do "strategic planning" when you have not addressed the mission, the brand and the goals, what can you expect, except confusion.