Pivots demand more forceful response to disobedience

Character flaws at pivotal moments deserve immediate, extreme feedback.

Scattered throughout the Scriptures are stories of forceful response to sin that shocks the reader. In the Old Testament, Achan and his whole family are destroyed for hiding valuable idols. In the New, Peter is called Satan for rebuking Jesus, and Ananias drops dead for lying about the price of land he sold. Intermixed with stories of shocking mercy, it’s a challenge to understand how these dramatic events could come from the same merciful God. Anderson proposes a few tips to understanding.

First, these stories depict flaws in the sinner’s heart rather than their performance. Achan cared to increase his wealth more than to obey the Lord’s command to destroy all they conquered. Peter wanted Jesus to follow his plan to rule the earth rather than obey God. Ananias preferred the praise of men more than God’s approval. With sin that stems from the heart, God swiftly prunes the diseased branch, the person with the heart sickness, lest the whole tree be infected. When failure to obey is only the result of our flesh’s weakness, such as ignorance, exhaustion, hunger, etc., the Lord shows mercy if we recognize our error and repent.

Second, these stories target leaders. The Lord strikes hardest where the responsibility is greatest. A leader’s heart corruption infects farther and faster than any other person in the community. He expects more from those who are given greater responsibility, and it can be inferred that Achan and Ananias had considerable influence to have been so directly and harshly treated.

Third, these stories appear near the beginning of a new instruction. Achan is struck down at the beginning of the Israelites invasion of Canaan. Peter is rebuked at the first reference to Jesus' future suffering. Ananias dies at the launch of the Church. These are pivotal moments that demand clear example from the Lord about his response to disobedience. These three are all given as examples to cause the people to seriously consider God’s instruction and the consequences of a mixed heart.

Business leaders may know the value of feedback and implement a system to give and receive feedback in the course of everyday business. They may even be clear, concise, and direct in their feedback and truly care for the health of their people and business. However, three flaws exist to match the insights from these three men’s example.

First, business leaders often focus on performance over character. If the business is operating, all is well. Only when failure occurs do the leaders flock to the scene and mete out feedback. This assault on the action rather than a heart issue communicates that risk is not wanted, since failure of any kind faces swift retribution, and makes a repeat offense likely since the true source, if it truly is a heart issue, has gone untouched.

Second, business leaders prefer their highest performers by blunting their critical feedback. Not to be confused for feedback on legitimate mistakes, leaders can overlook character flaws in high performers because they get results. The leader may gain the benefit of that individual’s efforts for a time, but the influence on the rest of the team drags everyone towards the same character flaws.

Third, business leaders miss the pivotal moment of a transition to punctuate the seriousness of character flaws. They can spend countless hours on a crucial transition for their team and be undermined in a moment by a high performer whose behavior doesn’t follow along with the instructions that are causing the transition. A character flaw from a high performer at this point undermines the transition and can delay it for months while the leaders push everyone through it instead of leading them.

Harsh words these. If there’s a direction I tend, it’s definitely towards positive feedback and quick mercy towards failure. To think a time might come when, as a leader, I might need to fire someone on the spot for a public offense is shocking to me. It reminds me of a period in Relativity’s history, when the CEO fired the majority of his Engineering leadership in a single meeting. He gave them an imperative and a short time, perhaps a week, to consider whether they were fully on board or not. If they were not, he was crystal clear that they should immediately begin to seek employment elsewhere. Many left. This story may not be directly about a character flaw - I don’t know exactly what the imperative was - but it illustrates the same dramatic and effective response towards leaders at a pivotal moment. Oh God, help me to hold myself accountable to sterling character and to so value heart health that I would agree with you when a forceful response is necessary!

References