Leadership and Thinking Institutionally
Institutions have fallen on hard times in much of the West, and in North America in particular. For several decades now, the cultural zeitgeist has been one that has presumed there to be value in throwing off the supposedly constraining shackles of traditional institutions, all the in name of individual autonomy, self-determination, and moral revolution. Perhaps more recently, there has been a surge in cynicism of institutions from groups that have usually been associated with traditional moral norms and values. Rather than being animated by motives of moral, sexual, or political revolution, this group seems to have an especially pronounced distrust of institutions and institutional power/authority.
Others far more capable than I have noted this trend and sounded the alarm. The political scientist Hugh Heclo offered up his own outline of the dilemma in an exceptionally helpful little book, On Thinking Institutionally. “With few exceptions,” he wrote, “growing distrust in the modern mind is directed toward the entire institutional apparatus of modern society.”
Heclo’s reflections were published in 2008, but they ring with a particular relevance right now. Perhaps more than ever before in recent memory, the past year has revealed how profound that distrust really is. And it has clearly seeped into virtually every layer of American evangelicalism. Social media did not create the problem, but it has seemingly brought it to the fore and exacerbated things.
But the erosion of confidence in institutions—and their weakening in our common life—comes at a tremendous cost.
What Are Institutions?
Trying to clearly and plainly define what we mean by institutions may be a bit more complicated than we realize. But again, Heclo is helpful here when he observes that “institutions represent inheritances of valued purpose with attendant rules and moral obligations. They constitute socially ordered grounding for human life.”
Or we could note Gordon Smith’s definition: “An institution is a social structure that leverages wisdom, talent, and resources toward a common cause or purpose.”
We may be tempted to assume that institutions and organizations are synonymous. That’s not exactly the case. In fact, Heclo’s observation suggests that institutions are more transcendent than organizations. They often do take on organizational forms, of course. Indeed, I would argue that healthy and effective organizations are those that function institutionally. But there is a difference.
Why Do Institutions Matter?
First, institutions provide necessary structure. At the most profound human level, I believe human beings were actually created to flourish in places. Perpetual trancience is not our original factory setting. Rather, as Heclo puts it, we are “disposed toward rootedness.” And therein lies our modern dilemma. We have denigrated the very things needed to structure our lives with meaning, eroding the solidity we actually crave. Again, Heclo articulates this predicament aptly, “To live in a culture that turns its back on institutions is equivalent to trying to live in a physical body without its skeleton or hoping to use a language but not its grammar.”
These structures also bring with them embedded constraints that delineate boundaries of acceptability or inhiobit our otherwise unmitigated license. But humans have historically understood these constraints to also have an enabling dynamic, one that affords us the ability to flourish as human beings.
Second, institutions take into account the reality of human nature. Institutions—and institutional thinking—recognize that human beings are finite creatures with limited capacities. Even more, they acknowledge and compensate for the reality of human fallenness, that we are not as virtuous as we would wish to imagine. Of course, Christian theology has a very straightforward proposition to make sense of this human dilemma. Because of the fall, every human being is indeed corrupted by sin to such an extent that we can never remedy our problem in our own power. We may not be as evil as we could possibly be—thanks to the restraining common grace of God in the world—but we are indeed corrupted by sin in every facet of our personhood and incapable of remedying the problem.
Again, Heclo offers a good summary: “Precisely because men are not angels, we turn to institutions and their standards to help restrain our ordinary human impulses to lie, cheat, and steal (among other numerous faults that come naturally to our species).”
This would seem to ring especially true for those of who who see the world and ourselves through the framework of biblical Christianity and a generally Augustinian tilt. At least in theory, none of us are surprised by the need to have restraints on our fallen nature. Institutions thus develop moral codes, sometimes written and sometimes not, to which the participants agree. When transgressed, the assumption is that there will be correction.
Third, institutions have formative power. I believe that healthy organizations produce healthy leaders. The converse is also true. Healthy leaders help create healthy organizations. But I also believe that institutional thinking is a crucial hinge in that symbiotic reality. In fact, it may be the crucial hinge.
Yuval Levin’s work is especially relevant on this subject. His book, A Time To Build, presses in on this theme. In particular, Levin cautions that we in the West have largely shifted from understanding institutions to be formative but rather performative, that they exist as platforms to highlight each of us as individuals (i.e. our own “personal brands”).
In my experience and conviction, institutions of higher education have an especially potent form of this. We see it for great ill when leveraged for the most virulent forms of assault on Christian faith. But the converse is true as well. Our Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries carry with them an incalculable potential to form people in ways that can dramatically enrich their lives, deepen their wisdom, and expand their capacity to flourish in God’s goodness.
What Makes for Healthy Institutions?
Entire books have been written to offer answers to that question. But I find Gordon Smith’s framework to be especially helpful, as he offers seven characteristics of effective institutions. Some resonate more loudly than others, but surely they are all of consequence. If I had to distill much of it down to two twin priorities, here’s what I’d propose.
First, keep the mission central. In my experience, most institutional dysfunction is downstream from a failure to consistently and clearly articulate the mission to every layer of the constituency. Seen from an overtly theological paradigm, Smith’s conceptualization of institutional mission as a charism is worthy of reflection. “By charism we mean a gift, a contribution, very specifically a gift from God” (Smith, 20). Further reflection is needed on this theme, I suspect, by senior leaders and governing boards. It situates the Christian theme of stewardship as central, recognizing that our mission is one entrusted to us. And it can certainly help mitigate the temptation toward institutional hubris, the kind that can dangerously blind any organization and lead it down destructive paths.
If the mission really is the chief priority, then it also clarifies the role of the senior leader. As Smith puts it, his or her most crucial role is to “clarify the mission, keep the institution on mission, and assure that all new personnel believe in the mission.”
Organizations operate in inherently anti-institutional ways when they set out to undermine those “inheritances of valued purpose” in their mission. Seen from that light, a great many organizations operate in this way, actively pursuing objectives at odds with institutional frameworks. Whether in pursuits that dehumanize others, that attack the integrity of families, that perpetuate injustice, that undermine religious freedom, or any other number of outcomes at odds with that which leads to human flourishing.
Second, put people first. There is a particular form of narcissism that marks our time. There is a good bit of fame--and presumably financial gain--to be won by building one’s own platform by tearing down institutions. But it comes at an incalculable cost. “Striving to make yourself the celebrity star in your own life leaves you striving in an empty house of mirrors,” writes Hello.
No matter the scale, people come first. I do think that the human proposition comes before the financial. The folks I get to work with are more than cogs in a wheel, more than the sum of their quantifiable job performance outcomes. They are real people–men and women made in God’s image who have real lives, real joys, real challenges. They long to flourish. And they have marriages, kids, aspirations, etc.
That means that while no one is indispensable, no one is inherently disposable. There’s a key difference. Leaders and team members run a perilous course when we succumb to the illusion that our organizations cannot exist without us, or that they exist to enable our own appetites and selfish ambitions. But we also need to be reminded that every member of our team is made in the image of God, that they are to be treated with respect and dignity. That doesn’t mean that hard turns won’t come. But even in the most difficult of circumstances—including a layoff or termination—we don’t treat people as objects, easily discarded. People come first.
Let’s be honest. The present zeitgeist is one that is not only leery of institutions, but is actually downright hostile toward them. Cynicism and distrust are so ubiquitous that there is even great profit to be made by those willing to traffic in institutional arson. But for those willing to lean in—to go about the hard and quiet work of building and rebuilding, those willing to recognize that institutions have a resilience and value worth preserving—there’s plenty of good work to be done.
