LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT BY COMMON CONSENT

by: Norberto G. Betita

Throughout my study of business management in graduate school and in my trainings from management consultants together with my years of actual experience as a bank officer provided me with so much understanding of the structural hierarchy in different types of organizations. Among the leading organizational structures are labelled vertical and horizontal or flat. Both had the concept and idea of collective motivation for subordinates to help attain corporate goals and objectives. Around these types of organizational structures, allocations of roles and accountabilities are centered on the culture prevailing in the corporate pattern. The flow of responsibilities is determined by the kind of hierarchy that is present in the organizational format. Many believed that applicable structures are influenced and established according to the size of the organization. Vertical organizations are generally employed for larger corporate operations where the chain of management comes from the top ranking CEO connecting down the level of middle managers. While the horizontal or flat structure is best applicable for smaller groups wherein the managers handle the day-to-day tasks interacting with customers and front-line personnel. Both have their respective advantages and disadvantages.

In my long years of voluntary service in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I have found an even better leadership and management structure that can be most effective not only as it is used in the church, but even in a corporate community. I termed it as Leadership and Management by Common Consent. “And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith…” (D & c 26:2) This management structure however is significantly different from that of the corporate viewpoint considering that its origin is more from an ecclesiastical voluntary organization where workers are generally unpaid. Its goals and purposes are divinely manifested and the ultimate objective is to save souls. Yet its operation is similar to that of a corporate organization where there are appointed leaders and subordinate managers of ecclesiastical units. The same interactions that are present in a corporate organization are also extant in the church.


Prospective leaders in the church are called from all walks of life. They do not even know that they are to be called anytime until they are interviewed for a position. They do not apply for any office in the church; neither do they aspire for any calling of authority. They are appointed and chosen by inspiration or revelation to the person who holds a key to preside. When one is assigned to a position of trust he is not required to submit a resume or to be questioned about his capabilities. All that would be asked of him are his personal worthiness and his willingness and desire to serve. They are informed that the call is from God and it is a beckon of divine stewardship. Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35;41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Once called, the leader is presented before the congregation upon which he is called to preside and his subjects who are the members of the group raised their hands to the square as a solemn manifestation of common consent that they are willing to support and sustain the man or woman whom they have mutual belief as being called of God. Therefore, the accountability of the leader is not to the people but to God who called him.

As in a corporate operation, these church leaders together with the members are called upon to engage, involve and participate in order to attain goals and objectives. They plan, organize and control. They set objectives; they take initiatives and respond to changing situations; they decide and take responsibility for wrong decisions; they persevere; they take positive attitudes and learn from failures; they develop the attitude of positive personal image; they delegate responsibilities; they listen, support and criticize constructively when needed; they undertake prayerful considerations on matters of importance; they persuade, motivate and create enthusiasm among members. All these they do on a part-time basis. In their stewardship accountability they are guided by the principle that, “Men will be held accountable for the things which they have and not for the things they have not. … All the light and intelligence communicated to them from their beneficent creator, whether it is much or little, by the same they in justice will be judged, and … they are required to yield obedience and improve upon that and that only which is given, for man is not to live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” (Joseph Smith ).

When called upon to lead, these men generally feel that they are inadequate of the responsibilities that they are assigned to do and so become hesitant to respond affirmatively. They understand however that they will be accountable only according to their present capacities and not on the magnitude of their responsibilities. But they know that they are required to obey and improve their capacities as to qualify for the call. They are told, “Wherefore, now let every man learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed, in all diligence.” (D & C 107:99). They know that this is not their work that they are doing, “It is the Lord’s work, and when [they] are on the Lord’s errand, [they] are entitled to the Lord’s help.” They are reminded, “…that whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies.” (Thomas S. Monson). This means that when one is called to be a Bishop in the church, generally he do not have the required knowledge of the many responsibilities attendant to the office. He is required to do his work only according to the limited capacity that he has at the moment. Then he slowly learns his duty precept upon precept, here a little and there a little as he is provided with the needed help to eventually qualify for the weight of his position. Further this is meant that when one is called to be a clerk he must work to become the best clerk that he can be. If he is to be the quorum president he must strive to measure up to the high calling of leading the brethren in the Priesthood. As he follows these admonitions he increased in knowledge and understanding of the nature of the work and improve his capabilities to do and magnify his calling. In the process he encourages engagement, involvement and participation in the achievement of goals and objectives of the ward.

These leaders and workers are not paid for their labors neither are they “compelled in all things,” but they “anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, [to] bring to pass much righteousness; for the power is in them wherein they are agents unto themselves.” (see D & C 58:26-28). They are self-motivated in accepting accountabilities. They knew that to be a good leader they should be a good follower and they take initiative to follow the Lord’s example of ‘Servant-Leadership’. They follow the admonition of Hugh B. Brown when he said, “[we] cannot effectively teach [what we do] not profoundly believe. … Our lives and our teachings must not be at variance.” (Eternal Quest, Bookcraft, 1956, pp. 179, 181.) They sit in council together to discuss goals and actions, and to measure accomplishments. They may have different ideas and opinions on matters affecting the organization, but in the end they unite in a common consensus and support and sustain the decision of the presiding authority. Therefore, their mind-sets are focused on a single path towards accomplishment and achievement of goals. They are taught and they learned that “Authoritarian rule is not the proper rule by which to govern Saints, but rather seek to administer in the spirit of humility, wisdom, and goodness, teaching not so much by theory as practice. Though one teach with the eloquence of an angel, yet one’s good practices, good examples, one’s acts, constantly manifesting wholeheartedness for the interests of the people, teach much more eloquently, much more effectually.” (Lorenzo Snow). It is no wonder that they accomplish much and achieve more.

I tried to incorporate some of these principles in my leadership responsibilities in the corporate setting. I found it to be more efficacious considering that I am dealing with men who are qualified and skilled in their respective positions, are working full-time, and are properly paid for the labors they performed. These are integral motivational means upon which the workers are enthused to function and accomplish. My role then was to utilize suggested leadership principles which I deemed preeminent in establishing an atmosphere of common consent. The response was beneficially and positively evident by the fact that for years I had gained a consistent outstanding performance until I retired.