When I was in middle school and high school, the cheerleaders would occasionally do this thing during football games where they would come up into the stands and start throwing out little plastic footballs. I’m sure you’ve seen something similar to this.

Every single time this happened, people who weren’t paying the least bit of attention before were completely engaged. Then, for the remainder of the game, little plastic footballs were flying all over the stands. Some of them even made their way onto the field.

I’ve always wondered why this was a win in the minds of the cheerleaders. Now, quick disclaimer, I won the superlative for “Most School Spirit” my senior year of high school, so I was always the guy yelling at the student section when they weren’t supporting the team the way they should have been. So, it always bothered me that the cheerleaders, who are supposed to be responsible for leading cheers, were instead distracting the crowd from why they were all ultimately there… to cheer on the team.

In the minds of the cheerleaders, they were generating excitement and energy. They were getting the crowd’s attention. That’s a win, sure. But at what expense? For the rest of the game, the crowd was distracted by the plastic footballs, and the janitors had a lot more clean up. Did the plastic footballs enhance the experience of the crowd? Of course. That probably is the goal at a high school football game, though I wish it weren’t.

Now, that’s a long rant if I’m just talking about plastic footballs at Rossview High School. But I say all of that because I think there’s a principle there.

Never create momentary engagement at the expense of long-term commitment to the ultimate goal. 

Opportunities will constantly present themselves to do something “cool” to grab people’s attention. But if that momentary engagement is a distraction from what you’re ultimately wanting people to do, don’t do it. If cheerleaders truly wanted to lead people in cheers, they wouldn’t be passing out plastic footballs.

How does this look for you? What are you tempted to do that will create a buzz, but ultimately be a distraction? Is it always bad to create a buzz? Absolutely not. Should you evaluate the long-term effects of the buzz-item? Absolutely.

Recently I got a mass email from Moody asking for help in naming a new campus program. They have this cool new idea they’re implementing, they just needed help picking a name.

Now, I don’t mean to throw Moody under the bus with this post, but they just provided me with an excellent case study I couldn’t pass up. Here’s a principle for leaders of anything:

You never ask a large group of people for help in branding a cool idea. Never.

This is especially pertinent for church leaders. Our thinking typically goes like this: “Well, this ministry isn’t even for me! They’re the ones who are gonna have to live with the name… not me. So we might as well let them decide what it’s called.”

That is precisely why you can’t let them be the ones who name it.

Here’s why:

1. When given a voice, people become attached to their idea. Consequently, when their idea is not picked, they no longer buy-in with the same commitment they would have if they had never been given a voice.
2. You lose your edge of confidence. The goal of branding is to sell. In order to sell something, people must think you’re confident about what you’re selling. When you ask a large group what to brand something, you automatically lose the ability to stand up with your idea as if you are absolutely confident it’s the right idea. That won’t sell.
3. You forfeit the opportunity to ride the wave of momentum. When you hand the branding over to the market, you miss a chance to stand up with the new and final idea and get people excited about how great it is. Why? Because they’ve already heard about it before it had a name! Now you’ve defeated the purpose of naming it well in the first place!

When I was in high school some friends and I were starting a band. Whenever you start a band, you have to come up with a name for the band. I made the mistake of asking a big group of people on a road trip for their opinions. To this day, people tell me we should have named the band something else.

If you ask a large group to name something, the first thing they’ll think about when they hear its name won’t be the cool idea the name represents, but will be the other names left on the table.

Don’t make that mistake.

As I’ve observed people and situations, I’ve noticed two different types of leaders. I’m sure some leadership expert has written extensively on this somewhere, but if they have, I haven’t read them. So, for the sake of this post I’m using my own terms for these two people: Organic Leaders and Positional Leaders.

• Organic leaders are the people who walk in a room and become the leader by instinct. It doesn’t matter if they knew the people before or not, give them half an hour and they’ll be in charge.

• Positional leaders are those who can lead once they have an opportunity, but aren’t as gifted at creating the opportunity themselves. In an unfamiliar environment, they may not vocalize their opinion (even though they probably have one and likely feel strongly about it).

I think misunderstanding these two types allows for potential stars in leadership to fall through the cracks.

I’ve heard this statement multiple times in reference to leadership: “Real leaders don’t need a position to lead.” The thought is that “real” leaders will just start leading.

The problem with this statement, though, is that it confuses organic leaders as real leaders, as if organic leaders are the “true leaders”. Consequently, potential stars are never recruited, trained, or encouraged because they seem passive, quiet, or apathetic in the initial environment. This causes the organization and the individual to miss out.

I understand the thinking that a person should be willing to contribute to the team even without a position, and I agree. My point, though, is this: Some of the best leaders are not going to thrive until you give them a position. That doesn’t mean you have to hire them, it means you have to recognize them and give them a platform.

Don’t allow potential stars to fall through the cracks by confusing organic leaders as real leaders. We need organic leaders and positional leaders, but unless we’re intentional, we’ll only get the organics.

Have you seen this dynamic play out? How do you attempt to recognize positional leaders?